DEVA SINGH Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVA Singh filed an application for ejectment of Dharam Singh on the ground that he had impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The landlord had let out wooden structure and what the tenant had done was that he raised a pacca wall on one side of the wooden structure. According to the landlord, this amounted to impairing the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The stand of the landlord was disputed by the tenant and his case was that the wall was constructed with the express consent of the landlord and the amount was spent by the tenant which was adjusted in the rent. On the contest of the parties issues were framed and after the evidence was led, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it was proved that the tenant had raised the pacca wall without the consent of the landlord and, therefore, it amounted to impairing the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The landlord had produced the original rent note Ex. A -2 on the record and on the back of the rent note there was endorsement dated 31st March, 1973, which was relied upon by the tenant. The endorsement was to the effect that the tenant had spent a sum of Rs. 100/ - for raising a pacca wall and that amount was to be adjusted in the future rent The landlord accepted another sum of Rs. 5/ - and in this way had received Rs. 105/ - as advance rent for 7 months up to October, 1973. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the endorsement dated 31st March, 1973, was not put to the landlord and was not got specifically exhibited and, therefore, could not be relied upon by the tenant. The tenant took the matter in appeal and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that mere building of a wall did not amount to impairing the value and utility of the tenanted premises and without going into the point whether the wall was built with the consent of the landlord or not, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment. The landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties. I find that there may have been some merit in the argument of the counsel for the landlord that the tenant could not raise the wall without the consent of the landlord, but on the facts of this case. I find that this point will not arise. The rent note was throughout in the custody of the landlord and the same was produced on the record as Exhibit A -2 by the landlord to show that a wooden structure (Khokha) was let out to the tenant and now the tenant has raised a pacca wall. The case of the landlord was that he never gave permission to the tenant to raise any construction. A look at the back portion of the two page rent note would show that the rent was being received by the landlord by making endorsements on the back of the rent note right from June, 1963, till October, 1973. The last but one endorsement is of 31st March, 1973, of having received Rs. 400/ - as rent upto the end of March, 1973. The very next endorsement is also of the same date wherein after adjusting a sure of Rs. 100/ - spent by the tenant for constructing the wall, advance rent was -received for next 7 months upto October, 1973. Such an endorsement need not be put to the landlord for the document was coming from his custody and would be evidence in the case. Therefore, I am of view that the Rent Controller was in error in taking a view to the contrary. One endorsement dated, 31st March, 1973, is taken into consideration it is amply borne out that the landlord had given an express permission to the tenant to raise the wall at his own expense which was to be adjusted in rent. Once the construction has been made on this understanding it would be deemed in law as if the landlord himself made the construction. On these facts no question would arise of impairing the tenanted premises.