MOHAR SINGH CHAUDHRY Vs. SMT. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shmt. Krishna Devi filed an application for ejectment against Mohar Singh tenant in September, 1973 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act), on two grounds, (1) for non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1st August, 1972, at the rate of Rs. 40/- per mensem plus house tax and (ii) that the tenant had failed to occupy the residential premises for a period exceeding four months without sufficient cause. The application was contested by the tenant who pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per mensem inclusive of house tax and that he had spent a sum of Rs. 780/- in constructing the boundary walls with the consent of the landlord and he was allowed to deduct that sum from the arrears of rent and in this manner tendered the balance rent on the first date of hearing. Under the second ground, he pleaded that he had not failed to occupy the premises in dispute. After issues were framed, evidence was led by the parties and the Rent Controller, vide order dated 29th October, 1974 held that the rate was Rs. 15/- per mensem inclusive of house tax that the tenant had failed to prove that he spent the sum of Rs. 780/- in raising the boundary walls or that there was an agreement permitting him to do so and for adjustment of the expenditure towards arrears of rent. On this basis, the Rent Controller found that the tender made on the first date of hearing was short even at the rate of RS. 15/- per mensem. On the other ground also, the Rent Controller found that the tenant failed to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of more than six months without any sufficient case and that he had shifted his residence to another house in Mohalla Angadpura. On this finding also he was held liable to be ejected. Accordingly, an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant, who filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and there the findings of the Court below were not seriously challenged as would be apparent from a reading of para 9 of that judgment. The entire stress before the Appellate Authority was on an application filed before it under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the written statement to plead that the building was exempt for a period of five years from the operation of the Rent Act and, therefore, under that Act no order of ejectment could be passed. This prayer was disallowed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the tenant wanted to make out entirely a new case and in this view the Appellate Authority relied on the decision of A. D. Koshal, J., in Kundan Lal Verma v. Sushila Devi,1971 PunLR 819, wherein also a tenant was not allowed to amend his written statement to plead a new case. The Appellate Authority, therefore, declined to allow amendment of the written statement and dismissed the appeal, against which the tenant has come up in revision to this court.

(2.) No reasonable argument has been raised before me for taking a different view on merits of the case. The tender made on the first date of hearing was short that he raised any boundary walls and also that he was permitted by the landlord to make improvements and to adjust the expenditure from the rent.

(3.) If some repairs are to be carried out to a building given to a tenant, the tenant can ask the landlord to repair it and if he fails to do so, then the tenant has to apply to the Rent Controller under section 12 of the Act, who after such enquiry as he thinks necessary, may direct the tenant to make such repairs with a direction to deduct the cost from the rent which is payable by him. In the present case, if we take it that it was a case of repairs, the tenant failed to adopt any of the two procedures. On the other hand, what appears is that it was a case of making improvements. No tenant is entitled in law to make any improvements except with the consent of the landlord may not be able to bear it. Therefore, before a tenant is allowed to make improvements, he must secure authentic evidence. It is not suggested that there can be no oral agreement in this regard but the tenant has failed to satisfy the courts below even on the basis of oral evidence. Therefore, I uphold the findings of the Courts below that the tenant has failed to prove that he spent, any amount in raising the boundary walls or if he had really spent the money, then the landlord had permitted him to do so with agreement to adjust the same from the rent. The finding of the Rent Control on the ground of the tenant having failed to occupy the premises in dispute for more than six months without sufficient cause is also unexceptional. Accordingly, this finding is also upheld.