FAQIR CHAND Vs. BASI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent landlady Smt. Bassi Devi filed a petition under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against Faqir Chand petitioner-tenant for his eviction from shop No. 5925/3, Chhota Bazar, Ambala City, on the ground that value and utility of the shop in question has been materially impaired by the petitioner-tenant. The Rent Controller Ambala City, vide his judgment dated 11.9.1991 accepted the plea of the landlady and held that the value and utility of the demised premises had been impaired by the tenant and, therefore, ordered ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute. The appeal filed by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, Ambala City, was also dismissed vide judgment dated 5.5.1984. It is against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the present revision has been filed.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that Smt. Bassi Devi rented out Shop No. 5925/3 situated in Chhota Bazar, Ambala City to petitioner Faqir Chand on monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The rent was enhanced from time to time and was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month by consent of the parties. The landlady filed the present petition for the eviction of the tenant on the grounds :-

(3.) A perusal of the impugned judgments of both the Courts as well as report of the Local Commissioner coupled with the statements of P.W1 and P.W2 shows that the petitioner-tenant had replaced the roof of the rear room of the demised premises without consent of the landlady. The Local Commissioner in his report has stated that the roof of the rear room was reconstructed. He has also mentioned that all the Karies, Faties and Girder were new ones. A hole was also created in the roof having six iron rods and the said iron rods were new. It is thus, clear that the petitioner-tenant had replaced the roof of the rear room of the shop in dispute and also placed Girder and Ballas in the roof to give support of the Karies and Faties. Thus, in my considered opinion, replacing of the roof of the rear room with Girder, Ballas and 'Faties' definitely amounts to impairment. The replacing of the roof without the permission of the landlady amounts to materially impairing the value and utility of the shop in dispute. Moreover, as has been found by the Local Commissioner, opening of a hole in the roof also amounts to impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. It is, thus, clear that as the material changes have been made in the rear room of the shop in dispute without consent of the landlady, therefore, the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. In view of the above, both the Courts have rightly ordered the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present revision and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the shop in dispute. Petition dismissed.