JEET RAM Vs. MOHINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, Patiala dated 23.12.2009 whereby an appeal filed by the respondent-landlord against the order dated 15.2.2006 of the Rent Controller, Patiala dismissing his ejectment application, has been accepted and the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises.

(2.) The brief facts which are emerging out from the impugned judgment are that, the respondent filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short the 'Act') on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant in a part of the house as mentioned in the heading of the petition @ Rs. 600.00 per month. The petitioner has failed to pay the rent despite repeated demands. The petitioner-tenant has made major additions and alterations without the consent of the respondent landlord and as such the value and utility of the building has been materially impaired. It was also averred by the respondent-landlord that the petitioner had also rented out the part of the house which he had purchased. Thus, the petitioner was liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the aforesaid grounds.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioner appeared and filed written statement admitting that he was in possession of the part of the house bearing No.2556/4 which was rented out to him and stated that no additions or alterations were made in the premises in dispute. Rate of rent of the demised premises @ Rs. 600.00 per month was denied and it was further pleaded that the rent note was got signed from the petitioner by the father of the respondent, in whom the petitioner had full faith on the pretext that the said rent note was required for taxation purposes and the tenancy in respect of the premises in possession of the petitioner was never created under the said rent note dated 22.10.1988 and it was a paper transaction and was not acted upon. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the alleged rent note, wrong description of the premises in question in respect of possession of the petitioner has been mentioned. as toilet and bathroom were already existing when he was inducted as a tenant and he has fixed only the glazed tiles in the bathroom which has added to the utility of the bathroom. The petitioner further admitted that he had purchased the small house where he along with his family members was residing but that accommodation was hardly sufficient for his family. He had never rented out any part of the building purchased by him. Denying other averments, prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.