(1) THIS order of mine will dispose of Civil Revision No. 3805 of 1991 filed by the tenant against the order of the Authorities below ordering his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. Civil Revision No. 113 of 1992 has been filed by the landlady against the findings of the authorities below with, regard to rate of rent.

(2) LANDLADY-SHANTI Rani sought ejectment of the tenant on the around of non-payment of rent. In the ejectment petition, which was filed on 9 8 1985, the landlady claimed that the premises were let out to the tenant w. e. f. 1. 1. 1979 at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month, and w. e. f. 1st of January, 1983, the rent was increased to Rs. 525/- per month; that after adjusting all the rent received upto date, the tenant is in arrears of rent with effect from 1. 8. 1983 onwards.

(3) THE claim of the landlady was denied by the tenant, who stated that the rent was not increased to Rs. 525/- per month w. e. f. 1. 3. 1983; rather the same was increased from 1. 1. 1984. On the first date of hearing the tenant through his counsel Shri. N. K. Nanda, Advocate, tendered a sum of Rs. 1,254/- as arrears of rent w. e. f. 1. 5. 1985 to 31. 7. 1985 at the rate of Rs. 525/- per month. The balance rent of Rs. 321/- was stated to have already been paid. The sum of Rs. 1,350/- and Rs. 40/- were tendered as interest and costs respectively, in addition to a sum of Rs. 1254/-, meaning thereby that in all, an amount of Rs. 2,644/- was tendered by the tenant on the first date of hearing. Both the Authorities below accepted the plea of the tenant that the rent was increased w. e. f. 1. 1. 1984, but passed an order of ejectment against the tenant after finding that the amount tendered by the tenant on the first date of hearing was short. This order of the Authorities below has been impugned by the tenant in Civil Revision No. 3805 of 1991. On the other hand, the landlady by filing Civil Revision No. 113 of 1992 has impugned the orders of the Authorities below holding that the rent was increased from 1. 1. 1984.

(4) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties at lengtht I find no merit in the revision petitions.

(5) LANDLADY while claiming arrears of rent specifically stated in para 2 of the petition that the tenant is in arrears of rent since March, 1983. For the facility of reference, para 2 of the petition is reproduced hereunder :

"2. That the respondent is in arrears of rent since 3/83. The respondent was irregular in payment of rent. The respondent is a tenant since January, 1979. After adjusting all the rent received upto date, the respondent is in arrears of rent w. e. f. 1. 3. 1983 onwards. The respondent is liable to be ejected on this ground alone. "

(6) THE tenant filed written statement to the ejectment petition of the landlady. In reply to para 2 of the ejectment petition, he stated as under :-"2. That para No. 2 is wrong and hence denied. The petitioner was intentionally not accepting the rent. However, total rent has been tendered upto 31-7-85 in the Court. "

(7) IT is not disputed before me that the tenancy started w. e. f. 1-1-1979 and the rent was being deposited by the tenant in the account opened by him in the name of his landlady, in New Bank of India, Sector 22, Chandigarh, and for this, statement of account has been placed on record as Exh. A-2. In this account, the total amount deposited by the tenant was Rs. 19,950/ -. In the second account, the tenant had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,790/- in the name of his landlady, which was subsequently withdrawn by the landlady. The total amount of both these accounts comes to Rs. 30,740/ -. The total amount thus paid by the tenant after giving concession of Rs. 2700/-, the rent which is admitted to have been paid in cash at the time of creation of tenancy w. e. f. 1-1-1979 to 30-6-1979, comes to Rs. 34,275/ -. This amount also includes a sum of Rs. 1254/-which was tendered by the tenant on the first date of hearing. The total amount due w. e. f. 1-1-1979 to 31-7-1985 comes to Rs. 36,975/ -. Therefore, after deducting the amount paid by the tenant as indicated above, the amount fell short of Rs. 2250/ -. In this view of the matter, the tenant was in arrears of rent on the date when the petition was filed, and he having not tendered the complete rent due on the first date of hearing, the Authorities below justifiably passed an order of ejectment against him. Even if it is taken into consideration that the rent for the month of July, 1985 was not due when the petition was filed, i. e. on 9-8-85, then also, the rent tendered was short. Once the tenant has taken a specific plea in his written statement that he had already paid the entire rent upto 31-7-1985, then onus was on him to prove that the entire rent had been paid and he was not in arrears of rent. The tenant in his statement as R. W. , 3 has admitted that he always deposited the rent in the bank account by means of cheque and that at only one point of time, i. e. on 9-2-1980, he deposited a sum of Rs. 900/- in cash in the bank account. This amount of Rs. 900/- is reflected in the statement of account, and has been taken into consideration.

(8) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the landlady the entire rent stood paid before 1-3-1983 and therefore, the statement of account of both the bank accounts cannot be taken into consideration, is of no substance because the tenant in his statement has admitted that be always deposited the rent in the bank account. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out anything from the record in order to prove that apart from the rent paid as shown in both the accounts and the rent paid on the first date of hearing, any other amount was paid by him towards the arrears of rent. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. Now adverting to the Civil Revision No. 113 of 1992 filed by the landlady, learned counsel for the landlady has not been able to point out anything from the record from where, it could be concluded that the rent was increased from 1-1-1983. Therefore, the finding of the Authorities below is affirmed that the rent was increased from 1-1-1984.

(9) CONSEQUENTLY, both the revision petitioner, i. e. C. R. No. 3805 of 1991 filed by the tenant, and C. R. No. 113 of 1992 filed by the landlady, are dismissed. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided he pays the entire arrears of rent within one month from today including that of three months, and also filed an undertaking before the Rent Controller to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises after expiry of aforesaid period.