RAJ KUMAR Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar tenant-petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging judgment dated 7.4.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority, Muktsar. The Appellate Authority has ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground that the tenant- petitioner has effected material alterations without permission of the landlady-respondent.

(2.) THE landlady-respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant-petitioner alleging that the demised premises was rented out to the tenant-petitioner on 28.6.1989 on an agreed rate of rent of Rs. 900/- p.m. A rent note was duly executed in favour of the landlady- respondent. It was further alleged that material alterations have been made by the tenant-petitioner. She has averred in her ejectment petition that as per rent note the demised shop is 7-1/2 feet high and beyond 7-1/2 feet further roof has been constructed by the tenant-petitioner, whereas he had no concern with the first upper storey constructed beyond 7-1/2 feet roof of the demised shop. It has been further alleged that two other shops adjoining demised shop also have 7-1/2 feet height. On the roof of the above said two shops and the demised shop, one gallery of 5 feet in height has been constructed. On the said gallery further roof has also been constructed. It has been alleged that the tenant-petitioner without the permission of the landlady-respondent in a clandestine manner during the night time had broken the roof of the shop in dispute and raised walls on both sides of the gallery. The aforementioned portion of the gallery has been illegally included in the demised shop. On 14.7.1996 Vinod Kumar who has been occupying the said gallery for his business, lodged FIR No. 48 at Police Station City Muktsar. There are allegations of further material alterations by raising walls in front of the shop upto the height of 1-1/2 feet from the level of the floor.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition of the landlady- respondent by holding that the tenant-petitioner was not in arrears of rent nor there was any material alteration effected by him. The ground of personal necessity was also negatived by the learned Rent Controller. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings on issue No. 2 concerning material alterations by the tenant-petitioner and findings on other issues were affirmed. The learned Appellate Authority made a detailed reference to the statement made by Vinod Kumar AW-7 son and attorney of the landlady- respondent, copy of the first information reported lodged by Vinod Kumar at Police Station City Muktsar as Ex.P2; statement of Dalip Singh AW-1 and site plan Ex.A1, AW-2 Constable Kashmir Singh, AW-3 Dhanna Singh retired S.D.O. who inspected the premises in presence of the parties, his report Ex.A4 and site plan prepared by him Ex.P5. A detailed reference has also been made to the statement of Mr. Ashok Kumar Bansal, Advocate who was appointed as Local Commissioner and inspected the spot on 12.8.1996 and his report Ex.A4/4, photographs Exs.A4/C to K, negatives Exs.A4/L to Q and his rough report Ex.AW4/R. The statement of Sampuran Singh AW-5 has also been referred to who has proved the site plan prepared by him on 24.2.1992 Ex.AW5/A.