GURMIT SINGH Vs. KIRPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petitioner. 2 Landlady (respondent herein) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (briefly 'the Act') for the ejectment of her tenant, Gurmit Singh (petitioner herein) on the ground that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. ' In the petition for ejectment, it was alleged that the shop in dispute was earlier sold by Sarbjit Singh s/o Hukam Singh who had let out the shop in dispute to the respondent on a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. Sarbjit Singh sold the property including the shop in possession of the tenant, to the landlady vide sale-deed dated 6-8-1979. After the sale, the tenant approached the landlady and requested her to let out another shop consisting of passage and space on the back of the previous shop and the landlady agreed to let out the shop after construction, on a rent of Rs. 800/per month. The consolidated rent of both these shops was thus claimed to be Rs. ,1000/- per month which also included house-tax. The landlady also alleged that the tenant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/to the landlady on 6-8-1979. The ejectment was claimed on the grounds that the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month, w e. f. 6-7-1980; that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the property; that the tenant without the written consent of the landlady, removed the wails AB and BC of the shop marked 'x' in the site plan and has amalgamated the two shops into one. The removal of the said walls AB and BC has materially effected the strength of the property; that the tenant has also lowered the flooring of the shop by one foot; that the tenant has fixed a wooden ceiling inside the shop by placing wooden beams. The wooden beams have been placed by digging holes in the walls and wooden planks have been fixed on the beams. The aforesaid construction of the ceiling has seriously effected the stability and life of the walls.

(2.) ON appearance before the Rent Controller, the tenant tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month, but claimed in the written statement that the rat-; of rent was Rs. 300/-and not Rs. 1000/as claimed by the landlady, it was claimed in the written statement that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the landlady for the purchase of the shop and it was agreed between the parties that the said amount shall be returned to the respondent. It was also settled that till the amount of Rs. 10,000/-is returned, interest paid on Rs. 10,000/ was to be adjusted in the rent payable for the additional space meaning thereby that the tenant was to pay Rs. 200/- in cash to the landlady and was to pay Rs. 300/- as and when the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was returned.

(3.) THE Rent Controller on the basis of evidence on record found that the rate of rent of the shop cannot be less than Rs. 700/- per month, ground of impairment of value and utility of the premises was found against the landlady and thus, the ejectment petition was dismissed. The landlady impugned the order of the Rent Controller before the Appellate Authority who allowed her appeal and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The appellate Authority found that the rent was increased to Rs. 1000/- after additional space was made available to the tenant. Since the rent had been tendered by the tenant, as claimed in the ejectment petition, on the first date of hearing, the tenant was found not liable to be ejected on the ground of arrears of rent, but finding of the Rent Controller on the other grounds was reversed after having been found that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the shap by constructing a gaddi (platform) false ceiling as well as by lowering the floor of the shop. This order is being impugned in the present revision petition, by the tenant.