9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a valid agreement for the adjustment of rent and electricity charges from the interest payable by the respondent to the petitioner and his wife. 2. Whether the petitioner committed wilful default in the payment of rent from March 1977 to March 1978. 3. Whether the letters sent by the petitioner's wife under certificate of posting were received by the respondent. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Agreement for Adjustment of Rent and Electricity Charges: The petitioner claimed that there was an agreement between him, his wife, and the respondent for adjusting the rent and electricity charges from the interest payable on two promissory notes executed by the respondent. The Rent Controller found that such an agreement existed and dismissed the eviction petition. However, the Appellate Authority held that there was no written agreement and the letters produced by the petitioner did not prove the existence of such an agreement as there was no evidence that these letters were received by the respondent. The High Court reviewed the evidence, including Ex. R. 1, a letter dated 27-2-1977, which confirmed the mutual settlement of accounts and the existence of the agreement until February 1977. The Court found that this agreement likely continued beyond February 1977, as evidenced by multiple letters sent by the petitioner's wife under certificates of posting, which detailed the adjustments made. The Court concluded that the agreement for the adjustment of rent and electricity charges continued to be in force even after February 1977. 2. Wilful Default in Payment of Rent: The respondent claimed that the petitioner had wilfully defaulted in paying rent from March 1977 to March 1978. The petitioner countered this by asserting the existence of the agreement for rent adjustment. The Rent Controller accepted the petitioner's contention, but the Appellate Authority did not, citing the lack of a written agreement and proof of receipt of the letters. The High Court, however, found that the letters sent under certificates of posting, which detailed the adjustments, were sufficient to establish the continuation of the agreement. The Court applied the presumption under Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that a letter posted to the correct address is presumed to be received by the addressee. The Court concluded that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent as the rent was adjusted according to the agreement. 3. Receipt of Letters Sent Under Certificate of Posting: The petitioner produced several letters sent by his wife under certificates of posting, which detailed the rent and electricity charges adjustments. The respondent denied receiving these letters. The Appellate Authority held that there was no proof of receipt of these letters by the respondent. The High Court referred to the principle established in previous cases that a letter posted under certificate of posting is presumed to be received by the addressee unless proven otherwise. The Court found that the respondent did not provide any evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court concluded that the letters were indeed received by the respondent and that they established the continuation of the agreement for rent adjustment. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, and dismissed the application for eviction. The Court found that the agreement for the adjustment of rent and electricity charges continued beyond February 1977, and there was no wilful default in the payment of rent by the petitioner. The letters sent under certificates of posting were presumed to have been received by the respondent, thereby proving the existence of the agreement. The eviction petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
