NARINDER NATH Vs. LT COL JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Narinder Nath was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises situated in Jalandhar on the basis of an agreement between him and the landlord, Lt. Col. Jaswant Singh, (respondent) made on 17/03/1977. The landlord thereafter filed an application under Ss. 13(2)(b) and 2(b)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the "Act') claiming (i) that the tenant had after the inception of the tenancy started using the premises for a purpose other than that for which it had been let out and (ii) that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the shop in question by making additions and alterations thereto. The tenant contested the application and claimed that the shop had been taken for the purpose of business but no particular nature of business had been specified. He also denied that the additions and alterations, as alleged, had been made but admitted that a wooden partition had been put up so as to facilitate the proper conduct of the business. The Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether there is relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties, OPA 2. Whether respondent has made additions and alterations and thereby materially impaired the value and utility of the property? OPA 3. Whether respondent has changed the purpose for which property was let out, if so to what effect, OPP 4. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPA 5. Whether plan attached with the petition is wrong? OPR 6. Relief. Issue Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were not contested by the tenant and, as such, were decided in favour of the landlord. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the landlord on merits and consequent thereto the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who reversed the findings on issue No. 3 and held that the change of user had not been proved but confirmed the ones on issue No. 2 and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the present petition has been filed by the tenant.

(2.) Mr. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the tenant-petitioner, has made a three fold argument; (i) that there was no evidence to show that the tenant had installed any shutter or made any alteration to the demised premises (ii) that even assuming that the shutter had been fixed, as claimed by the landlord, the various clauses of the rent note authorised such changes and (iii) that in any case the fixation of the shutter had not materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of this assertion, reliance has been placed on M/s. Parkash Chand Harnam Singh v. Shri Gian Chand (1979) 81 Pun LR 196, Om Parkash v. Amar Singh, (1987) 1 Ren CR 326 , Om Pal v. Anand Swarup,1988 HRR 614 (SC), Darshan Kumar v. Kaka Ram 1991(2)100 Pun LR 412 and Bhupinder Singh v. J. L. Kapoor (1992) 2 Rent LR 243 (Punj and Har).

(3.) Mr. R. S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-landlord has, however, supported the findings of the authorities below on the reasoning adopted by them and has, in addition, urged that the scope of this Court"s interference in revision under S. 15 of the Act was limited and circumscribed as held by the Supreme Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana (1993) 1 S CC 499. He has also urged that this Court was not entitled to reappraise the evidence so as to arrive at a conclusion different from the one taken by the authorities below and, if the view could be reasonably taken on the evidence adduced, this Court would not interfere. Mr. Sarin has, however, relying on Mrs. Mohini Suraj Bhan v. Vinod Kumar Mital, AIR 1986 SC 706, controverted this argument and urged that it was open to this Court to examine not only the legality but also the propriety of the orders of the authorities below and to reappraise the evidence, if necessary, to arrive at its own independent decision. After perusing the two cited cases, it appears to me that the observations of the Hon"ble Supreme Court do appear somewhat opposed to each other, but even assuming that this court can reappraise the evidence, as has been suggested by Mr. Sarin, I find that even on a reappraisal 1 cannot be persuaded to take a view different from the one that has already been taken. I, therefore, now proceed to examine in extenso the arguments raised by Mr. Sarin.