VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL Vs. BISHAN SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by the tenant-petitioners under sub- Section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity the Act) challenges the judgment dated 8.9.1993 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sonepat. The Appellate Authority has reversed the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller that the tenant-petitioner has made material alterations in the demised shops.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to decide the legal controversy raised in the present petition are that the landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the Act asserting that the tenant-petitioner was given two shops on rent on a monthly rent of Rs. 265/- for the purpose of carrying on the business of Typing. It was further averred that Rent Note dated 15.2.1985 was executed between the parties. The landlord-respondent pleaded the grounds of arrears of rent from 15.10.1987 to 14.8.1988, change of user by starting the cloth business instead of typing business without the permission of the landlord-respondent and the ground of material alteration impairing the value and utility of the property as he has removed the intervening wall of the two shops without the permission of the landlord-respondent which has deteriorated the value and utility of the property.

(3.) THE only ground which survives for consideration is as to whether the tenant-petitioner has caused material alterations by removing the intervening wall within the meaning of Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act. The Rent Controller appears to have been influenced by the fact that only one electric meter was installed and had there been two shops then two meters would have been in operation. The Rent Controller further held that even if the wall is removed it would not necessarily follow that the value and utility of the premises has been impaired materially. The Rent Controller also held that onus to prove these substantive facts was on the landlord-respondent.