DES RAJ Vs. GANDHI MEMORIAL LIBRARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 in this petition filed an application against the petitioner for his ejectment on number of grounds as envisaged by section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, the Act) but only succeeded on one ground, that is, under section 13(2)(iii) that the petitioner had made such alterations in the building rented out to him which have materially impaired the value and the utility of the said premises. On an appeal by the petitioner against this order of the Rent Controller the said finding was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Now before me three contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner (i) that the respondent - applicant Gandhi Memorial Library is not a juristic person and thus was not competent to make the application on which the order of eviction has been passed : (ii) what was rented out to him was not a building as defined in section 2(a) of the Act and if that is so there is no question of any alteration or impairing the utility or value of the same ; and (iii) on facts it is not established that the constructions alleged to have been raised by the petitioner have in fact in any way impaired the utility or the value of the building in question.

(3.) The first two contentions have only been stated to be rejected. It is the admitted case that the premises in question were rented out to the petitioner by Mange Ram who is stated to be the President of the Gandhi Memorial Library, to which institution the property in question belongs. This position is well supported by the rent note Ex. A. 1 itself. In view of this factual position the petitioner being a tenant cannot possibly question the title or status of his Landlord. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel has not pointe out anything as to how the premises in question does not fall within the definition of "building". In this connection he only made a reference to the heading of the application wherein it is stated that certain area had been rented out to the petitioner. A reading of the application as a whole makes it abundantly clear that the premises which is stated to be an area in the heading of the application an area which is covered on all sides by a wall and there is a tin roof on it. Further this application makes a reference to the rent note Ex. A 1 which clearly mentions the dimension and the structural existence of the premises rented out to the petitioner. Thus I repel both contentions of the learned counsel.