RAM PARKASH Vs. GURDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE premises in dispute is a residential house No. 175 at Nawan Shahr, consisting of one big room, courtyard Drawing room and another room without roof and a verandah. It was rented out to Lachhman Singh vide rent note Ex. A.1, dated 30th January, 1961, on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. It was recited therein that the, tenant will not make any alterations of any kind in the said premises. Lachhman Dass the original tenant, died on 6th January, 1972 and subsequently the respondents occupied the premises as tenants since then. Ejectment Application was filed on 15th June, 1981 on three grounds-(i) that the tenants were in arrears of rent since January, 1972; (ii) that the tenants had made structural changes in the demised premises by roofing a room which was originally without any roof at the time of inception of the tenancy which act of the tenants is illegal and unauthorised and likely to materially impair the value and utility of the demised premises; (iii) that the landlord required the premises for his personal use and occupation as he was having no other accommodation in his occupation at Nawan Shahr. The allegations were controverted in the Written Statement filed on behalf of the tenants. The arrears of rent along with interest and costs were tendered on the first date of hearing and therefore, that ground was no more available to the landlord. As regards the allegation of structural changes and requirement of the premises for the personal use of the landlord, the tenants made a categoric denial. The learned Rent Controller found that by roofing one room forming part of the demised premises the tenants were guilty of making structural changes and thus, they were liable to ejectment. However, regarding personal necessity the court found that the landlord was guilty of concealing the material fact that he was also in possession of a house at Nawan Shahr and, therefore, his ground of personal necessity could not succeed. In view of the earlier finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings about the structural changes made by the tenants and came to the conclusion that the said alterations though admitted by the tenant did not diminish the value and utility of the demised premises. Rather, according to the appellate authority not only the utility of the room had increased but also its value as a result of the dispute roof. Consequently, the order of eviction was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same the landlord has filed this petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case law cited at the bar. The relevant provision in the Rent Restriction Act is that a landlord can seek the ejectment of his tenant if the Rent Controller is satisfied that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land as contained in section 13(2)(iii). It is admitted by the tenants that the premises were let out as a residential house of which one room was without a roof and the tenants had constructed the roof of the said room during the tenancy. It is also cited in the rent note Ex. A1 that the tenants would not make any alterations of any kind in the said building. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the recitals in the rent note clearly show that the roof of one of the rooms had been put by the tenants after the commencement of the tenancy and they have not proved any written consent from the landlord in this respect and as such, they have definitely made structural changes in the demised premised by putting a roof on one of the rooms and on this basis the learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was liable to be ejected. This finding, as such, has not been reversed by the Appellate Authority. According to the inference drawn by the Appellate Authority the value or the utility of the demised premises by constructing the said roof was not diminished, rather it had increased. This approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. From a perusal of section 13(2)(iii) of the Act it is clear that the landlord has to prove the material facts and the inference as to whether the value or the utility of the building has been impair has to be drawn by the Court upon the facts proved by him as was held in Kartar Singh's case (supra). Thus, the sole question to be determined is whether this act of the tenants is likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or not. This has to be seen from the point of view of the landlord. It was observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Narain Singh's case (supra).