MANGAL DASS Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision.

(2.) PETITIONER is a tenant in the shop which consists of two parts; first part is being used for the sale of confectionery items whereas the back room is used for the preparation of the same. The shop was taken on rent by the tenant somewhere in the year 1947. The present landlord (respondent herein) purchased this property in 1969. After the purchase, tenant accepted him as his landlord and in acknowledgement thereto executed a rent note dated July 5, 1969. On 10-10-1983, the respondent filed ejectment petition against the tenant (petitioner herein) seeking his ejectment from the shop in dispute on the ground that he has materially impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute by making a hole in the back room for emiting smoke as well by constructing two Bhathees. It was claimed in the ejectment petition that vide agreement dated 22-3-1971 the tenant had agreed to close the hole. It was also stated that in the agreement, tenant admitted that the hole was made without the consent of the landlord. The hole was closed for some time as per the agreement. In pursuance of the agreement, a few days before the filing of the application, the same was again opened by the tenant and, therefore, the ejectment was claimed as he has impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute. Tenant contested the petition. It was claimed by the tenant that he is occupying the premises since 1947. The Bhathees as well as the hole are in existence from the inception of the tenancy. With regard to the execution of agreement dated 22. 3. 1971 (Ex. A-2), he gave the explanation that the landlord represented to him that the rent note dated 5. 7. 1969 has been lost and, therefore, he requires another rent note from him. Without realising that the same was an agreement, he signed the same. Rent Controller, on the appraisal of the evidence, dismissed the ejectment application. Rent Controller found that she hole for emitting smoke as well as the Bhathees were already there and no such construction was made subsequently by the tenant as claimed by the landlord. With regard to the extortion of the agreement, it was also held that the same has not been proved to have been executed by the tenant. On appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Authority set aside the finding of the Rent Controller and passed an order of ejectment. This order being impugned here in this civil revision.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed.