KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. KRISHNA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails order dated 4.2.2009 allowing the Civil Revision preferred by the respondent, granting three months' time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question.

(2.) The parties shall be referred to by their respective position before the Rent Controller for convenience. The plaintiff-landlord filed Rent Petition No.51/02 for eviction of the respondent-tenant on ground of non-payment of rent and making material addition and alterations without the consent of the plaintiff. The arrears of rent having been paid, the Rent Controller rejected the plea for eviction holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove any addition, alteration etc. Rent Appeal No.16/1988 preferred by the plaintiff was rejected. The plaintiff then preferred the Civil Revision application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the two shops, the subject matter of the suit are contiguous to each other. The respondent runs a photo studio in the tenanted premises. Shop No.1 was leased out from 1.5.1981 and the tenancy of Shop No.2 was recorded in an agreement dated 17.4.1985 acknowledging that the respondent was in occupation since earlier. Clause 9 of the former lease for shop No.1 permitted addition and alteration at the cost of the respondent. The plaintiff in his evidence gave up his claim for eviction from shop no.2. The respondent in his written statement had specifically denied the allegations of having made any material addition and alteration in the leased premises. It was next submitted from Exhibit P-1, the site plan filed by the plaintiff, that the partition wall between the two shops had remained undisturbed.