SITA RANI Vs. USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R. No. 1793 of 1999 is against the concurrent orders of dismissal of petition for eviction sought at the instance of the landlord under the provisions of Punjab Rent Restriction Act. C.R. No. 5794 of 1998 was an order of restoration of amenity under the same Act, which had been passed on a petition at the instance of the tenant that the landlord had prevented access to go to the toilet. The relief as sought for was also granted and therefore, both the revisions are at the instance of the landlord. Against the dismissal of landlord's petition for eviction, although several grounds had been made, the only ground on which the argument was presented before me by the learned Senior Counsel Sh. M.L. Sarin was that the tenant had caused material impairment in the building by altering "show window" and fixing a rolling shutter in the place. This, according to the landlord, was an actionable wrong by the tenant since (i), there was an express recital in the rent deed that the tenant shall not do any act such as alteration or modification in the building without landlord's permission; (ii) The activity of the tenant has exposed him to an action for resumption under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as the 1952 Act) and the relevant rules. The contentions of the landlord had been rejected by both the Courts below. The authorities had taken note of the evidence given on the side of the tenant that the placement of shutter in the place where there was a "show window" was a temporary fixture, which could be removed and the "show window" restored within 24 hours. The evidence given by an engineer to the said effect was not controverted by any other evidence given by the landlord. The Appellate Authority had also reasoned that a notice of resumption by the public authority had been issued on 15.11.1990 and there was no mention in the notice of violation by fixation of shutter in the place of "show window". This, according to the Appellate Authority, showed that even the public authority was not prepared to take notice of this change as constituting an actionable wrong that could expose the landlord for resumption.

(2.) As regards the contention that the tenant had caused a change in the demised building by removing the "show window", there is no dispute at the trial about the fact that the removal was indeed done by the tenant. He was trying to justify it by bringing an evidence of expert that it was merely a temporary fixture, which did not cause any material impairment in the value and utility of the building. Learned Senior Counsel would point to me at the forefront of his arguments that the Appellate Authority had completely misdirected himself to assume that a change had been made by the tenant in the year 1990 when actually the change had been made only subsequently in the year March, 1993. I find that the Appellate Authority was committing an error of fact but the question is whether this would make any difference, for admittedly the action for resumption was not on this basis at all. The authority had pointed out to the division of "hall building" into three parts, which was purported to be against the provisions of the 1952 Act. The partition of the hall into three portions by erection of partition walls had been made even when the landlord himself was a tenant in one of the portions. Admittedly, the landlord himself was a tenant of the building and he had purchased the same subsequently on 11.05.1998 to qualify for his status as landlord vis--vis the tenant. It is also an admitted fact that the proceedings before the authorities are still pending on the particular complaint which the public authority has but it has absolutely no bearing to the complaint, which the landlord mounts against the tenant in this case.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel points out to me term of the lease, which stipulates, inter alia, as follows:-