J S SODHI Vs. MELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Dr. J.S.Sodhi, and others (hereinafter described as "the petitioners") directed against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 25-5-1996 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated 4-5-1999. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.

(2.) The respondent is the landlord and, admittedly, petitioner No. 1 is the tenant in the suit premises. Petitioner No. 1 had taken the suit property i.e. ground floor of S.C.O.No. 809, Sector 22A, Chandigarh on rent. The respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners on a large number of grounds. The other grounds of eviction did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority. The present controversy relates to the ground of eviction taken by the respondent that the tenant petitioner has made material additions and alteration by raising permanent structures. A permanent room was stated to have been constructed towards the backside of the tenanted premises and it was being used as a dark room from X-ray films. Even a bath room provided to Dr. Sodhi towards the backside had been damaged and the same had been reconstructed by him at his own level for his own facility. It was further asserted that the machinery had been installed on the floor of the demised premises by constructing pucca foundation and in this process the main portion of the tenanted building had been damaged. A number of permanent cabins on the floor of the demised premises have been made without the prior permission of the landlord.

(3.) The petition in this regard was contested. It was pleaded that through a writing Mela Ram and is brother Jai Chand leased out the property to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was to run X-ray clinic in the suit premises. He is a radiologist. It was denied that the propery in question had been taken for any purpose other than running of X-ray clinic. The contention that petitioner No. 1 had materially imparied the value and utility of the suit property was denied. The electricity connection was given in the suit premises with the written consent of the landord who had addressed a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Department. The property was stated to be in the same condition in which it was let out. Since it was X-ray clinic, dark room had to be there for X-ray, films and machinery had to be installed. This could not cause any damage to the landlord because the cabins were only temporary structures. The same have been set up for smooth running of the X-ray clinic. It was denied that it has caused damage to the suit property.