Judgment:
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Karam Singh (since deceased) and now represented by legal representatives against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur dated 22.12.1980 and of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur dated 6.11.1982. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction and the order was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
2. The relevant facts are that petition for eviction had been filed by Karam Singh against the respondent-M/s. Chaudhri Auto Division. It was asserted that the property in question which comprises of three shops was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- vide rent note dated 26.8.1978. Shri R.K.K. Chaudhary had executed the rent note. The respondent was alleged to be in arrears of rent since 26.9.1978 and converted three shops into one by removing the intervening walls without the consent of the landlord. It was in this process that it was asserted that value and utility of the premises has been impaired.
3. The respondent contested the eviction petition. According to the respondent, property had been let out for purposes of a show room. Three shops were converted in to one shop by the agent of the petitioner because the purpose of the tenancy was to run a showroom. It was denied, therefore, that value and utility of the property has been impaired.
4. On framing of the issues, the learned Rent Controller had recorded the evidence. It was held that tender of arrears of rent was valid. It was further held that the respondent has not impaired the value and utility of the property. It was concluded that it was let out as a show-room and intervening walls had been removed with the consent of the petitioner. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed. An appeal was preferred and the Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. The short question which was only agitated during the course of arguments was as to whether the intervening walls which admittedly had been removed from the three shops had been so removed with the consent of the petitioner or not
6. On behalf of the petitioner it had vehemently been urged that as per rent agreement, three shops had been let out. Oral evidence contrary to the terms of the written agreement will not be considered and further that within 3 months of the letting out of premises, the petition for eviction had been filed which indicates that permission had never been granted to remove the intervening walls. On the contrary respondent's learned counsel highlighted that it was let out for a show room. The petitioner's son had attended the opening ceremony and the walls were removed with the implicit consent of petitioner's son. He also urged that it is a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority which should not be disturbed in the revision petition because there is no illegality or impropriety in arriving at those findings.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners had made available the translation of the rent deed which reads:-
'I am Manager of M/s. Chaudhary Auto Engine, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, near Polytechnical College through R.K.K. Chaudhary, Proprietor. It is situated in the Abadi, Jalandhar Road, Gokal Nagar, Hoshiarpur. There are three single storeyed shops bounded as under:-
East: Shop of the owner.
West: Plot of Sohan Singh.
North: Road.
South: Kothi of the owner.
It is in the ownership of Sh. Karam Singh, son of Sh. Tara Singh, Ramgaria by caste, resident of Gokal Nagar, Hoshiarpur. I have taken all the three shops on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month since 26.8.1978. Now, I having received Rs. 400/- as rent for all the three shops upto 25.9.1978 have executed this Rent Deed to the effect that I will continue paying rent every month like this to the owner. I shall receive the receipt in lieu of the payment or make an entry on the back of the Rent Deed. Nothing will be demanded apart from this. I will not effect any demolition or construction etc. in the shops without the consent of the owner. I shall hand over the possession of the shops at the time of eviction in the same condition in which I have received. I shall pay the electricity bill besides the rent. I shall not further sublet the said shops to any person. I have taken the above mentioned shops for running the show room. Hence, I have executed this Rent Deed so that it may serve as an authority at the time of need. Dated 26.8.1978 the word ' Manager' in line No. 2 may be read as correct. The above mentioned shops have been taken on rent for 11 months'.
Perusal of the same certainly shows that specifically there is no mention that intervening walls of the three shops can be removed. But it has been mentioned that the shops have been taken for running of the show room. It obviously implied that one show room had to be set up and not three show room in three shops. It had to be described as three shops because admittedly at the time when the same were let out, there were three shops as such.
8. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Chander v. Mangal Singh and Anr., AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 94. In the cited case terms of the lease had been reduced into writing. It was held that oral evidence to prove existence of lease different from written agreement cannot be taken into account. The proposition in law is well settled and is not to be controverted. But when the lease deed itself as mentioned above shows that one show room has to be set up, then certainly if walls are removed it will be deemed to be with the consent of the landlord or not.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn the attention of the Court to the facts that in the written statement filed, the respondent had pleaded that premises were taken on rent for purposes of a show room and has converted into a show room by the petitioner's agent himself and the respondent did nothing as alleged. According to him this is contrary to the evidence produced by the respondent. Shri R.K. K. Chaudhary, Manager of the respondent appeared as RW-1. He stated that intervening walls were not removed by him. Pardip Singh had removed those Parda walls and then the premises were given on rent. He had obtained the premises on rent for purposes of a show room. Raj Kumar RW-2 further deposed that rent was settled at Rs. 400/- P.M. Son of Karam Singh had got the parda walls removed. Thus, the evidence in not very different from what has been pleaded. In fact petitioner's witnesses Lashkar Singh AW-3 admitted that when the respondent had converted the three shops into one shop, he was present. Pardip Singh attorney of the petitioner was also present at the spot. He has not raised any objection. He even admitted that respondent started the business after converting the same into a show room. This evidence of the petitioner's own witness coupled with the above said facts clearly shows that walls, if any, were removed. But it cannot be stated that these were removed without the consent of the petitioner. The findings of fact in this regard, therefore, require no disturbance.
10. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.