BIR BHAN Vs. ISWAR DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent/ landlady sought eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on the ground that the demised premises were required by the landlady for setting up office and library for her son who is studying in law; that the petitioner has changed the user of the shop and has started residing with his family on its upper portion; that he has impaired its value and utility and made material alterations without her consent. The Rent Cont- roller negatived the plea of the landlady and rejected her application. On appeal the only ground which prevailed with the Appellate Authority was that the tenant has used part of the demised premises for the purpose of godown for which the same were not let out as mentioned in the rent note It found that since the premises have been used as godown it amounts to change in user and ordered evict on of the tenant ' The tenant has come up in revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the finding of the Appellate Authority that the demised premises have been used for purposes other than that for which it were let out. The finding of the Appellate Authority is infallible.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the revision an application was moved by the landlady to take subsequent events into consideration. It was stated in the application that the shop in dispute had five khans. The present position of five khans is thus : "that the 1st and 2nd khans have totally fallen and the 3rd khan is in a complete dilapidated condition; that the first floor above the 4th khan and 5th khan have completely fallen and the Malwa of the Chaubara is lying on the floor. " This application was ordered to be heard with the main case. When the main case came up for hearing it transpired that the tenant had not filed reply Co the application through which the landlady had sought the subsequent events to be taken into consideration. In order to do substantial justice to the parties with the consent of the parties' counsel, (sic) appointed Miss Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate, of this Court as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and report whither the building in dispute had fallen and that the tenant has commenced bus ness in other business premises. The local commissioner submitted her report dated November 29, 1990. She (sic) the version of the landlady stated in the application and the relevant portion of the report reads thus : "the disputed shop is situated in the main Bazar of Ladwa. The disputed shop consists of 5 khans It is very clear to the naked eye that the roof of shop has fallen down The first khan of the shop has no roof left at all. All the rubble is lying on the floor. The roof of the second khan is in a dilapidated condition with danger of the roof caving in at anytime. The roof of the 3. 4 and 5th khans has partially collapsed with the bricks and rubble lying on the floor After looking around the shop 1 climed up the stair case to see the Chaubara. The stair-case apparently not been used at all for the last few months as the stairs were full of mud, making it one straight incline to the top When I reached the top 1 saw that there were old packing material, old banana skins lying around. There was growth of grass on the portion of the roof was still in existence. The Chaubara has no signs of any residence, or that it was being used as a godown to store any wares whatsoever. The roof of the Chaubara has also fallen down. When I came down from inspecting the chaubara 1 made it a point also to see whether there was any electricity in the shop. There was no electricity meter at all. Thus, it is clear that the roof of the shop in dispute has fallen down The floor is full of rubble and it is not possible to sit there and conduct any day to day business transactions. I was not able to find out where Mr. Bir Bhan has shifted his business to. But it is clear that the disputed shop did not give the look or have the appearance of any normal shop in which goods are kept, stored and then sold. There was no such evidence or sign that the disputed shop is being used at all. "

(3.) NO objection has been filed to this report and the same has to be accepted. There is no escape from the conclusion that the shop has collaped end at the spot only Malba is lying and it is not possible to sit there and conduct day to day business transactions. The eviction of the tenant apart from the ground which have been stated in the earlier part of the order can also be directed under Section 13 (2) (iii) and Section 13 (2) (v) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The tenant has caused act which has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. He did not tike any step for repairing the demised premises. He has also ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, as stands established from the report of the local Commissioner.