BEHARI LAL Vs. AJUDHIA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has been filed against the Judgment of Appellate Authority, Kangra at Dharamsala, upholding the judgment of Rent Controller, Kangra and dismissing the application for ejectment filed by Behari Lal.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that Behari Lal is the landlord and Ajudhia Das is a tenant under him on the ground floor of his double storeyed shop No. 231, Dehra Gopipur, District Kangra. The landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant under sections 13 (2) (i), 13 (2) (ii), and 13 (2) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (1949) (hereinafter rrferred to as the 'Act'), The allegations were that the tenant had not paid the rent since 28tii May, 1958, and thus owed the landlord a sum of Rs. 1620-00 as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per month. It was also alleged that the tenant had partitioned the shop without the written consent of the landlord. The third allegation was that the tenant has committed various acts and has impared materially the value bid the utility of the shop in question. Tie tenant controverted the allegation made by the landlord. He, however, admitted that some rent was due from him but it was due to the fact that the landlord was not accepting payment of rent from him. He expressed his wilhngness to tender and pay in the Court the arrears due along with requisite interest and costs assessed by the Controller in teims of the provision of Proviso to section 13 (2) (i) of the Act. On 3rd April, 1965, the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, the tenant tendered Rs. 2074-44 paise on account of rent, interest and costs as assessed by the Controller. His counsel made a statement that rent on excess was beins taken for which -an application had been made. The application of that date made by the tenant states that he had already paid rent upto 31st October, 1963, and the landlord petitioner was not entitled for the period before 6th January 1961and that the tenant was entitled to recover the amount which has already been paid to the landlord and for which he was not entitled. On the same day the learned counsel for the landlord made a statement giving up the ground of ejectment based on the non-payment of arrears of rent.

(3.) The Rent Controller framed the following issues :- ( 1) Whether the respondent has partitioned the shop and is liable to ejectment on that ground? (2) Whether he has materially impaired the value or utility of the building? After going through the evidence produced by the parties the Rent Controller dismissed the application for ejectment filed by the landlord. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority by the landlord which was also dismissed.