D.N. METAL INDUSTRIES Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Nath, landlord-respondent, executed a rent note on 01.01.1957 in favour of the petitioners M/s D.N. Metal Industries through its Proprietor, Nathi Ram, letting out the property (hereinafter referred to as the "demised premises"), consisting of one Balkhana, one room facing east, one Kotha facing towards north plus one court-yard bounded in the north by the shop of Chhaju Ram, west by the shop of Beran Chand and south-east by street and passage situated in Devi Bazar, Mohalla Kaharan, Jagadhari. By this rent note, a tenancy was created from 01.01.1957 to 31.12.1957. The rent was fixed at Rs. 325/- per annum plus house tax. At that time, Nathi Ram and one Darshan Lal, were the partners of petitioner No. 1-firm. Subsequently, Darshan Lal left the firm. Thus, the firm-petitioner No. 1 and Nathi Ram have become statutory tenants in the demised premises. Amar Nath the original landlord filed the eviction petition in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Jagadhari, on 31.10.1973 for eviction of the tenants under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on various grounds. Amar Nath having died during the course of the litigation, is now represented by his legal representatives. It was pleaded that the tenants are liable to ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, material impairment of the value and utility of the disputed property and change of user. The rent and the house-tax from 1.5.1967 to 31.8.1973 has been claimed. It was stated that the tenants have constructed two rooms, two tin sheds, another room on the first floor of the kotha and have covered the entire court-yard with tin roof. The original premises have ceased to exist and have been replaced by entirely different building. The value and utility of the property in dispute has been materially impaired. It was pleaded that the demised premises were residential and it had been let out for residential purposes but the tenants had started using it for manufacturing utensils and metal factory. Thus, they have changed the user of the demised premises.

(2.) IN the written statement, the plea put forward by the landlord was denied by the tenants. Rent of Rs. 325/- per annum was admitted. It was stated that the tenancy is annual and the rent does not include house tax. The terms and conditions of the tenancy are contained in the rent note, which is in the custody of the landlord. According to the terms and conditions, it has been agreed between the parties that the tenants would be at liberty to raise construction in the disputed property according to their own requirements. The existing constructions were in a dilapidated condition and the tenants required more rooms/sheds. So they were permitted to raise construction. Rent up to 30.4.1968 stands paid. The landlord has avoided the receipt of the rent. It was further pleaded that the value and utility of the property in dispute has not been impaired. Rather, they have increased the value and utility of the property in dispute. They have raised the construction according to the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The disputed property had been taken on rent by the tenants for setting up a metal factory. This question stands decided in the previous eviction petition by order dated 15.3.1966, which operates as res judicata in this behalf.

(3.) ISSUE No. 1 seems to have been framed by mistake as the plea with regard to the personal use and occupation had not been raised by the landlord. The contest between the parties was with regard to issue No. 2. Issue No. 2 has been decided in favour of the landlord. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 have been decided against the landlord. The petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises.