| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/610361 |
| Subject | Tenancy |
| Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-13-2003 |
| Case Number | C.R. No. 768 of 1987 |
| Judge | S.S. Nijjar, J. |
| Reported in | (2003)133PLR488 |
| Acts | East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13 and 13(2) |
| Appellant | Lachhman Dass |
| Respondent | Harbhajan Singh |
| Appellant Advocate | Parminder Singh, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | L.S. Wasu, Adv. |
| Disposition | Petition dismissed |
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The petitioner has filed an application for ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises on a number of grounds, which are as follows:-
1. That the respondent has not paid the rent of the above mentioned premises to the applicant w.e.f. 1.2.1982 to date at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month as per rent note dated 8.11.1978.
2. That the Municipal tax has been enhanced by the N.A.C. Goraya and this is the liabilities of the respondent to pay as per the record of the NAC, Goraya.
3. That the respondent has effected material alterations in the said premises by demolishing inner wall of the shop on ground floor on 6.3.1983 and has demolished the water tank in the premises on the ground floor and has extended the same by demolishing the earlier one resulting in crackings of the stair case of applicant's premises on the western side of the suit premises.
4. That the respondent has changed the user of the said premises, the premises on the ground floor are being used by him for photography purposes whereas he took as residential purposes.
2. The respondent took a number of preliminary objections. On the merits of the case put forwarded by the petitioner, it was denied that he is in arrears of rent. The learned Rent Controller, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the tender is short? OPA
2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of material alterations, non payment of rent and change of user as alleged in the application? OPA
3. Whether the application is not maintainable as alleged in the reply filed by the respondent? OPR
4. Relief.
3. The issue with regard to the maintainability was not pressed before the learned Rent Controller, issues No. 1 and 2 were answered against the landlord-petitioner. Consequently, the ejectment petition was dismissed.
4. The appellate authority has affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. I have gone through the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. Both the learned courts below after due appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out a case for eviction of the respondent-tenant. On issue No. 1, it has been held that the respondent was not liable to pay the house tax. The rent note Ex.A-1 was executed on 8.11.1978. The house tax has been imposed in the year 1977 prior to the execution of the rent note. The landlord was, therefore, aware of the house-tax having been imposed. Therefore, the premises were let out at a monthly rent of Rs.175/-. Both the learned courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent-tenant was not required to pay anything over and above the agreed rent.
7. On issue No. 2, both the learned courts below have relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner dated 27.12.1985 which clearly indicates that there was some signs of removal of wall and further held that the intervening wall was removed by the respondent. The learned appellate authority has further come to the conclusion that another wall has been constructed four feet away from the rear wall of the shop. The tenant is, admittedly, running a studio and for the proper enjoyment of the premises, he isrequired to make a dark room so that he may carry on the-business of photography.I am of the considered opinion that the judgments rendered by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, present revision petition is dismissed. No costs.