AMAR CHAND Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords have filed the present petition vide which they have assailed judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby their petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') for ejectment of the tenant- respondents had been dismissed.

(2.) JAG Ram (deceased), predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises, which is a shop, in the year 1952. The landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non- payment of rent and impairing the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing a Parchhati without their permission. The respondents tendered the rent on the first date of hearing and filed the written statement and denied the allegation of constructing a Parchhati by them. It was pleaded that the suit premises were in the same condition in which the same were let out to them. As the arrears were tendered on the first date of hearing, the ground of non-payment of rent was given up. The case was contested by the parties on the ground of impairment of the value and utility of the suit premises by constructing a Parchhati by the tenants without the consent of the landlords. Both the Courts below found that the tenants are not guilty of impairing the value and utility of the premises in dispute by constructing a Parchhati therein. The ejectment petition was, thus, dismissed.

(3.) ON going through the evidence adduced on record I am of the view that there are inherent contradictions in the evidence adduced by the petitioners. It has come in the statement of Kuldip Kumar petitioner that the alleged Parchhati was constructed two months prior to the institution of the petition before the Rent Controller. It has also come in his statement that he had forbidden the tenant from constructing the Parchhati but he did not pay any heed to his request and he refused to stop construction. However, during cross-examination he expressed ignorance about the mason who had constructed the Parchhati but subsequently during the course of trial the landlords examined Surjit mason as AW4. Surjit was produced on January 14, 1986 but his name did not find mention in the list of witnesses filed on May 23, 1985. Kuldip Kumar petitioner was examined on May 23, 1984. On that date he could not even tell the name of the mason, who had allegedly constructed the Parchhati. Further the petitioners stated that Karies were placed on the Chokhat, however the site place (plan ?) submitted by them shows the placing of one wooden batten on the Chokhat and the other one the wall. Besides this, it has come in the statement of Surjit mason (AW4), who was examined by the landlords, that he was not asked to restrain from constructing the Parchhati. It has come in the examination-in-chief of Kuldip Kumar petitioner that Jag Ram tenant placed goods weighing 100/500 maunds on the Parchhati. During his cross-examination he stated that the tenant keeps tobacco and the machine on the Parchhati. He also stated that the tenant has a weighing scale made of iron and has no other thing made of iron. According to the landlords, the Parchhati has been constructed by placing wooden battens on the Chokhat at the height of about 6-1/2 ft. The roof level is at the height of 10/12 ft.; meaning thereby that there was space of 4/5 ft. between the roof and the Parchhati. In such a space tobacco and machine or weighing scale of the weight of 100/150 maunds or weighing scale of he weight of 100/150 maunds could not be placed.