DALIP KAUR Vs. MOHINDER PAUL ALIAS MINDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is by the landlord against the order of the appellate Court dismissing the petition for eviction. The landlord had originally filed a petition for non-payment of rent. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, an amendment was made to add an additional ground, namely, that the tenant had been guilty of impairment in value and utility of the building by additional constructions without her concurrence. The tenant had contended that the agreed rent was only Rs. 1,000/- and not Rs. 1,200/- and while denying that there was any default, deposited the rent @ Rs. 1,000/- per month at the first hearing. The landlord received the amount under protest. The further contention in defence by the tenant was that there had been no material impairment and the building was in the same condition in which it was let. The Rent Controller found that the amount was only Rs. 1,000/- as contended by the tenant and, therefore, rejected the claim of the landlord that there was any default. He, however, accepted the contention of the landlord that there had been material alterations and directed eviction. In appeal by the tenant, the landlord contended that since eviction had been ordered, he could not be stated to be an aggrieved person requiring him to prefer an appeal against the finding and that it was competent for him to urge that a particular finding rendered against him was wrongly decided. The Court accepted the plea and while adverting to the issue of quantum of rent observed that even in the rent as entered in the municipal records, it was only stated to be Rs. 1,000/- per month and since there was no documentary evidence to show that letting was for Rs. 1,000/- per month, upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the rent was only Rs. 1,000/- and the ground of eviction for non-payment no longer available, more particularly in view of the fact that the tenant had deposited the amount with interest and costs. I find no reason to modify the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the quantum of rent when the tenancy was oral and the Courts below had adverted to the interest in the municipal records and the evidence of the tenant to uphold the claim that the rent was only Rs. 1,000/- and that was no default in payment.

(2.) As regards the contention of the landlord that there had been material alteration that impaired the value and utility of the building, the Court examined that alleged material alterations related to four aspects: (i) the shutter which had been placed inside had been brought outside as evident from the version of the building expert; (ii) the flooring of the construction had been raised without the landlord's concurrence; (iii) rain water spout at the terrace had been closed resulting in accumulation of water at the terrace and seepage through the wall; and (iv) additional tin construction had been made at the facade of the shop which was unauthorized. For each one of the statements, I find there were rival reports and evidence given by building experts brought by both sides. As regards the first plea that the shutters had been removed from within the shop to outside the shop, the appellate Court had reasoned that there were four shops in a row and in two shops, the shutters had been placed inside and in two shops, they had been placed outside. There was no uniformity in the manner in which the shutters had been placed and it was not possible to make an inference that the tenant would have done the same. As regards the contention that flooring had been raised, the Court found that flooring in the adjacent shop which the landlord owned, had been brick laid, while the flooring at the demised premise had been shown to be raised and had been laid with cement and concrete. The appellate Court found that the cement concrete cannot be said to be inferior and if at all, only brick laid floor would be amenable to seepage while cement concrete floor was stronger and cannot be said to be diminished the value and utility. As regards the water spouting, the appellate Court found that the tenant cannot do any act which can ruin the integrity of the building of which he was himself in occupation of. He observed that such mischiefs are generally done only by the landlord to force the tenant to succumb to their pleas of ejectment and he was not prepared to believe that the tenant had closed the water spouts. As regards the placement of a shed, it was temporary in nature and it had been raised at the PWD municipal road and only two ends of angles of iron rods had been fixed at the wall to support the tin roof which could be removed at any time.

(3.) Referring to these alterations, the Court found that there was no proof that any of these acts could be attributed to the tenant himself. He noted that the petition had been filed on 03.03.1997 and a plea of material impairment was made through an amendment which was drafted on 28.04.1997 and filed on 02.05.1997. In the application accompanying the amendment plea the landlord had stated that she had come to know about the alterations only in March, 1997. However, in the cross examination at trial, she stated that additions and alterations had been made one year after the filing of the eviction petition. With such contradictory pleas, the appellate Court held that even the plea of alleged alterations as having been done by the tenant cannot be said to be established. I do not find any error in the approach adopted by the appellate Court and I find the reasoning to be cogent and acceptable. I affirm the finding and dismiss the petition. No costs.