INDERJIT SINGH Vs. AVINASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision against the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The case set up by the respondent-landlord is that initially he rented out shop no.3 to the petitioner for running iron grill business at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- including house tax, but lateron another adjoining shop no.2 was also let out to the petitioner for the same business at the monthly rent of Rs. 850/- besides house tax. Both the shops no.2 and 3 are part of building bearing Property No.B-XXXIV-2333 (old) and B-XXXIV- 9090 (new), situated at Main Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana. He asked for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and material impairment of the value and utility of the building. It was alleged that both the shops have independent access from the road and intervening wall of both the shops was a load bearing wall. The petitioner, without the knowledge, notice and consent of the respondent, had removed the intervening load bearing wall, as a result of which the whole structure has become endangered and it could fall at any time. The eviction was also sought on the ground of bona fide personal use and occupation of the respondent himself. The landlord has alleged that he has 4 shops in the aforesaid building. He was earlier working with Prem Store, Basati Bazar, Ludhiana and after 30 years of service, left the job and now he wanted to start his own business of Miniari/Gift Items in the said shops being a suitable place for the same as Haibowal area is a fast developing area and has much scope for the said business. It was also alleged that the other two shops are required for the need of his son Ganesh Pahwa who wanted to open the hosiery showroom. The respondent also alleged that he has no other commercial building except these shops in the above said building and there is no other shop owned and possessed by the respondent nor he has vacated any shop/commercial building within the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act").

(3.) The petitioner contested the eviction petition, inter alia, on the ground that it is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with an ulterior motive without any fault on his part. The landlord is guilty of suppression of true and material facts from the Court. The landlord wants to get the tenant evicted as he had refused to enhance the rent. On merits, the tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but denied that he is in arrears of rent and averred that he had always been ready and willing to tender the rent, but the respondent-landlord did not receive the same despite repeated requests. He had deposited an amount of Rs. 68,601/- in the Court on 06.02.2007 and the landlord had accepted the same, therefore, the ground of eviction for non-payment is not available. He denied that he had committed any act of causing material impairment of the value and utility of the building. It was admitted that both the shops have independent access from the road, but denied that the intervening wall was a load bearing wall and that the said wall has been removed without knowledge, notice and consent of the landlord and because of the removal of the intervening wall, the structure had become endangered. It was pleaded that shop no.2 was taken on rent in the year 1981 and he took another shop no.3 in the year 1991 with a condition to remove the intervening wall of both the shops and as such, shops no.2 and 3 became a single shop.