RAM SARUP Vs. PALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by one Ram Sarup, landlord of the demised premises invokes revisional jurisdiction of this Court under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act') and challenges judgment dated 13.6.1991 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jind upholding the order of the Rent Controller dated 19.1.1991. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the tenant-respondent Pala Son of Dalip is not liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity as he required the demised premises for higher education of his family members and wanted to permanently settle at Jind, and also on the ground that there is material impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises as the tenant- respondent has made holes in the walls of the demised premises, fitted electric motor therein and has also encroached upon the verandah adjoining to the room by fixing a Gandasa and electric motor without prior permission of the landlord-petitioner. The ground of public nuisance has also been taken because the tenant-respondent has been cutting fodder in the Verandah and the fodder keeps on spreading in the nearby vicinity. The opinion of the lower appellate Court on the issues of public nuisance and as to whether the demised premises are residential or non-residential, read as under :-

(2.) ON the question whether there is material impairments in the value and utility of the demised premises, the learned Appellate Authority observed as under :-

(3.) IF the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the principles laid down in various aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court as well judgment of this Court in the case of Harjit Singh v. M/s. Daya Ram Sat Narain, (2003-1) PLR 579 : 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 270 (P&H) it becomes evident that the ground of nuisance would not be available to the landlord-petitioner because right from day one the premises had been let out for the sale, purchase and storage of fodder. The fodder cutting machines and electric motor is required to be installed for the aforementioned purpose. The landlord himself is running a dairy in the remaining part of the premises. Thus fodder is admittedly a commercial purpose and the demised premises are also situated in commercial locality where there are dairy farms in front of the demised. There are other fodder shops in the locality. The landlord-petitioner himself admitted that the folder machine was installed by the tenant 3/4 months after taking the demised premises on rent. The demised premises was rented out in the year 1978 obviously for a commercial purpose. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the findings are perverse or are based on no evidence. It cannot be said that a reasonable person would not reach the conclusion as recorded by the Courts below. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the revisional power under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act. The revision petitioner is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.