GOYAL STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs. SANGRAM SINGH SANDHAWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition wherein challenge has been made to the judgments dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, and 5.3.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, ordering ejectment on the ground of material impairments made in the demised premises.

(2.) INDISPUTABLY , respondent Sangram Singh Sandhawalia is the landlord of the Industrial Shed bearing No. 701, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. The premises were let out to the petitioner M/s Goyal Steel Industries, which is a partnership concern constituted by Shri Ram and Subhash Chand petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, on monthly rent of Rs. 5500/- in the year 1986. The landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the tenant has caused massive structural changes in the demised premises, which resulted in diminishing its value and utility. Notice of the ejectment petition was served on the tenant-firm. The tenant filed written statement wherein, inter alia, it was pleaded that there were no structural changes made by the tenants in the demised premises. A plea was taken that the premises were kept in the same condition in which the same were at the time of initiation of the tenancy. If there was any construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, the same was raised by the landlord himself and the tenants were ready to remove the same at the cost of the landlord. A replication was filed to the written statement on behalf of the landlord, wherein it was pleaded that there was no structural changes at the time of creation of tenancy by the landlord. The premises were verified by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh and the construction was found as per the sanctioned plan. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the tenant. Besides his own evidence, the landlord has examined Mr. G.B. Singh, Chartered Engineer Consultant (PW2) as well as Mr. Arvind Sandhu, Advocate who was appointed as Local Commissioner (PW3). Mr. G.B. Singh has stated that he inspected demised premises and he prepared the report (Ex.P2) regarding structural conditions existing at site. He stated that the middle courtyard has been completely covered except an area of 300 sq. ft. The steel structure, covering the open court-yard, is resting on the side walls as well as on the partition walls erected in the open court-yard as well as on the Chhajja on the back shed and the front sheds. It has further been alleged by Mr. G.B. Singh (PW2) that it is not permissible to cover the court-yard in the middle and it is a building violation for which a building could be resumed. Mr. Arvind Sandhu (PW3) in his report (Ex.P4) has stated that the tenant had made violations in the demised premises. In his report Mr. Arvind Sandhu had mentioned that there was digging to the extent of 2-1/2 feet and that the "tenant has covered all the entire area of court-yard and has built up small rooms for storage etc." In his cross-examination the Local Commissioner specifically stated that the tenants had themselves told him that the additions and alterations had been made by them. In the end of the lengthy cross-examination, this witness volunteered to say that "at the time of inspection it was disclosed by the tenant that all construction raised between the front and rear portion had been raised by him. Though Mr. Arvind Sandhu, Local Commissioner, was subjected to lengthy and cumbersome cross-examination by the counsel for the tenant, but he firmly withstood the same and could not be shaken at any point of time. Even Mr. Brij Mohan, who is a Junior Engineer in the Estate Office and was examined by the tenants as RW1 has stated about the building violations made in the demised premises. In the cross-examination this witness stated that as per the report dated 31.7.1976, available on the office record brought by him, the building in question was complete as per the revised plan. The premises were let out to the tenant in the year 1986. The violations in the premises had certainly taken place thereafter. Thus, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the landlord has failed to prove the violations in the demised premises at the level of the tenant.