JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This is tenants' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was filed by Radha Rani, the original landlady, who died during pendency of the suit and was survived by her legal representative, respondent No. 3. In the plaint of the suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 359 of 1979) it was pleaded that rate of rent was Rs. 15/-per month and tenants had not paid rent since 1.1.1976. Tenants pleaded that rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month and rent till August, 1978 had been paid by their predecessor-in-interest who died in August, 1978. Both the courts below have accepted the version of the tenant in this regard. The courts below have held that rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month and rent had been paid till August, 1978. Tenants further pleaded that seven months rent from September, 1978 to March, 1979 was sent through money order to the original landlady but the same was refused by her. This version was not accepted by the courts below. Tenants did not deposit any amount in the suit nor claimed benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act The trial court through its judgment and decree dated 31.10.1988 decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from September, 1978 onwards. Against the said judgment and decree both the parties filed revisions. Tenant's revision was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 303 of 1988 and landlord's revisional as S.C.C. Revision No. 25 of 1989. Landlord before the revisional court asserted that the findings on the rate of rent and period of default recorded against him by the trial court were erroneous. Revisional Court did not accept the said plea and confirmed the findings of the trial court in that regard. Nothing has been argued before me in this respect, hence this stands concluded. Revisional Court also disbelieved the version of the tenant that Rs. 70/- as seven months rent had been sent by him through money order and refused by the landlady
2. Both the courts below refused to accept the plea of the tenant in respect of refusal of money order by the landlord on the ground that in the postal receipt in respect of said money order which was filed by the tenant (No. 61c) complete address of the landlady was not mentioned and only name of the landlady i.e. Radha Rani and city was mentioned. In this regard the courts below also observed that the money order coupon containing recital of refusal of the landlady allegedly by postman neither contained postal stamp nor the signatures of the person recording the endorsement of refusal were legible hence refusal was not proved. Trial court further held that even if it had been refused by the landlady, tenant should have deposited the same in the suit.
3. In case it is held that landlady refused the money order then tenant will not be liable to eviction. It has been held in a Full Bench authority of this Court reported in Indrasini v. Deen Ilahi 1968 A.W.R. 167 followed in another Full Bench authority of G. Singh v. A.D.J. 2000 (1) ARC. 653 that in case the landlord refuses to accept the rent then rent remains in arrears but tenant does not remain in arrears of rent.
4. On the money order coupon complete address is not written by the Post office. learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner has cited an authority of this Court reported in S.N. Chaudhary v. Naug & Co. 1981 A.R.C. 680. In the said authority it has been held that simply money order coupon does not prove that money order was sent to the addressee however, if tenant appears in the witness box and states that the receipt filed by him is of arrears of rent sent by him to the landlord then sending of money order is proved. Part of paragraph-4 of the said authority is quoted below:
4. The other argument on inadmissibility was regarding the money order coupon paper No. 50...it is true that it does not contain the reseal of post-office. The post-man also denied it to be the coupon which was taken by him for delivery to the appellant's father. It may be suspicious and may be ignored. This is exactly what the appellate court did. It did not place any reliance on it. Even if it may be assumed for a moment that the letter sent by Superintendent of Post-offices could not be utilized the finding of the appellate court that the money order was sent within time based on the money order receipt and the evidence of defendant-respondent, cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. It is true the receipt by itself does not prove that the amount sent was the arrears of rent but the receipt alongwith statement do not leave any room for doubt that the amount sent was towards arrears of rent.
5. In the instant case also tenant-petitioner No. 2 Abdul Rasheed appeared as witness and stated that he had sent the money order to the landlady through money order receipt 61-C. The aforesaid authority of S.N. Chaudhary. (supra) is therefore squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and sending of rent through money order is proved.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned judgments, decree of the trial court as well as order of the revisional court in respect of eviction are set aside. Suit in respect of eviction is dismissed.
7. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C. 64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Property in dispute is a house containing two kothas and one tapra. Rent of Rs. 10/- per month is virtually as well actually no rent. Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from April 2006 onward tenant-petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord-respondent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month inclusive of water tax. No further amount shall be payable by the tenants.