BABU RAM Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition. Petitioner (landlord herein) filed a petition for ejectment of his tenant alleging therein that the shop on the ground floor was let out to respondent No. 1 on rent of Rs. 25/- per month for running karyana business. Later on one room on the first floor along with open terrace was also let out to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. Thus it was claimed that the rent payable by the tenant was Rs. 35/- per month which subsequently was enhanced to Rs. 66/- per month. At the time of filing of the petition, the rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 66/- per month. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the grounds that he has not paid the rent with effect from Ist of July, 1981; has sublet the premises to his father namely respondent No. 2; has made material alterations by converting the open space of the roof into a room by raising walls and placing tin roof and thus, has impaired the value and utility of the premises.

(2.) RESPONDENTS in their written statement though admitted the rate of rent, yet denied that the premises have been sublet. With regard to material alterations, it was stated that the alleged change was effected by the landlord himself.

(3.) AS per admitted case of the parties, prior to the filing of this present petition, the landlord had filed an ejectment petition in the year 1978. In the said petition (RW-2/1), the landlord had claimed ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he by constructing two chappars on the roof had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The said petition was contested by the tenant who in his written statement (RW-6/1) claimed that the tin sheets were placed by the landlord himself at the request of the tenant. This ejectment petition was got dismissed on the basis of a compromise and the rent was increased to Rs. 66/- per month. A reading of the copy of ejectment petition as well as the written statement filed by the tenant in that case makes it abundantly clear that this very ground of ejectment was taken by the landlord and the said petition was got compromised and the rent was increased to Rs. 66/- per month. In this view of the matter, I fail to understand as to how the landlord can make a grievance that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises by raising walls and putting tin-roof. The averments made in the present petition do not indicate as to when material alterations as alleged in the petition were made by the tenant and therefore, in my view, the appellate Authority rightly found that the landlord would not be competent to seek ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on this ground. Even otherwise, second petition for ejectment on the same very ground is not maintainable particularly when it has not been stated that any alteration in the structure was made after the decision of the first petition.