KULJIT SINGH SEHGAL Vs. GUPTA AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision against dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Authority, whereby the order of dismissal of the ejectment petition by the Rent Controller was affirmed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the material facts are that Shop-cum-Flat No 24 in Sector 18-C, Chandigarh previously belonged to one M/s. Baij Nath Asharfi Lal, and one Mr. Walia, who was carrying on trade under the name and style of Panchsheel Emporium, was the tenant therein. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh Adminstration, issued a notice to the landlord as well as the tenant under Section 9-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, to show cause why the premises be not resumed as unauthorised construction i. e. a structure had been made covered with G. I. sheets in the backyard of the ground floor of the said building, in contravention of the restrictions imposed under the relevant rules. It further' appears that the then landlord obtained an order of eviction against Mr. Walia and possession was taken by the landlord in May 1979. Thereafter the building was sold by M/s Baij Nath Ashraf Lal in favour of Kuljit Singh Sehgal, the present petitioner. By rent note Exhibit A-2, dated October 12, 1979. the building was let out to Messrs Gupta Agencies, the present respondent, with effect from October 12, 1979, at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- per month. The petitioner applied for ejectment of the respondent on various grounds by making application dated June 5,1981. The only surviving ground is that the respondent had constructed an unauthorised structure on the backyard of the ground floor with bricks and cement without the written permission of the petitioner, and thereby the respondent had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The petition was contested. The Rent Controller framed issue No. 3 as follows: "3. Whether the respondents have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premise ? If so, effect ? OPA. " On behalf of the landlord, the petitioner appeared as AW-1 and examined his father-in-law Major S. S. Sethi as AW-2. " who was at the material time attorney of the petitioner, and Harbans Singh. Section Officer of the office of Estate Officer, who had inspected the premises in the course of his duties on December 24, 1981, and January 7, 1982, and had noticed the unauthorised structure. On behalf of the respondent-tenant, Sat Parkash, partner of the firm, appeared as RW-1 and examined Kanwarjit Singh, a neighbour, as RW-3. Their testimony was to the effect that the structure in question had been in existence since the time of the previous occupant Panchsheel Emporium and the premises were in the same state in which the same were let out to the present tenant.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the backyard was already covered when the premises were let out to the respondent, and the respondent was thus not guilty of making any addition or alteration materially impairing the value or utility of the premises. The ejectment petition was accordingly dismissed by order dated March 21, 1983.