KASTOOR CHAND SARRAF Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the landlord has questioned an order of allotment, dated 17 -2 -1977 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the revisional order, dated 13 -10 -77 by the District Judge by which the disputed premises were allotted to one B.N. Srivastava after rejecting the landlord's plea that the same were a new construction because of extensive changes effected by him in the year 1975. The contention of the Petitioner is that on the material it should have been found that the construction was new. None of the opposite parties has filed any counter in this case and indeed have not put in appearance. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I have come to the conclusion that the order of the District Judge is unsustainable.

(2.) WHERE an old construction is converted into new premises by additions and alterations, the provision applicable is Section 2(2) Explanation 1(c) Act XIII of 1972 which runs as follows:

(3.) IN the present case the findings recorded by the District Judge are that a godown 90' x 12' was converted into a number of rooms by making walls in that godown. Roof and the four walls remained the same. Outside the old structure a kitchen, bath room, latrine, store and a fuel shed had been added. In fact the plan shown by the Learned Counsel also shows boundary of the court -yard to have been made. The four walls mentioned by the District Judge are obviously the four outer walls of the original building of which apparently the disputed premises utilize only two or three walls rest of the walls in the premises being all new partition walls. It was also found that the rooms and verandah made within the old go -down building measure approximately 500 sq.ft. covered area while the new additions are approximately 350 sq.ft. enclosed courtyard. But as noted already in the old building godown also, most of the walls are new. Rent Control and Eviction Officer had referred to the relative cost of old and new structures but the District Judge has not at all considered the extent of additions cost or areawise compared to the old structure utilized in the present premises and after enumerating the changes observed that these could not be regarded as substantial changes and additions. This order cannot stand.