GIAN CHAND Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents are the owners of a small plot of land within the Municipal limits of Barnala. It was let out to the petitioner for one year (15th October, 1973 to 14th October, 1974), at Rs. 700/- per month on 4th October, 1973, vide rent note Exhibit A1. The petitioner did not vacate the plot after the expiry of the lease period. He constructed a room and a verandah over the plot and started running a Karyana shop. In May, 1975 the respondents filed a petition for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground that the latter had made construction over it without their permission and the same has materially impaired its value and utility. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner had made construction over the plot in dispute without the permission of the respondents and the same has materially impaired its value and utility. He further found that the plot in dispute was not covered by the definition of 'rented land' in terms of section 2(f) of the East Punjab Rent petition of the respondents was consequently dismissed by the Rent controller vide order dated 23rd July, 1977. The respondents filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority, Barnala, by order dated 16th September, 1977. The Appellate Authority found that the plot in dispute had been let out to the petitioner for commercial purposes and as such it was covered by the definition of 'rented land' in terms of section 2(f) of the act. The order of the Rent Controller was consequently set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be ejected. The petitioner has assailed the order of the appellate Authority in the present revision.

(2.) THE only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plot in dispute was not let out to the petitioner for the purposes of being used principally for business or trade and as such it is not 'rented land' in terms of section 2(f) of the Act. The respondents therefore, could not maintain the ejectment petition under the act against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that in case the plot in dispute is held to be 'rented land' in terms of section 2(f) of the Act, the present revision shall be liable to be dismissed on the ground that he made construction thereon resulting in material impairment of its value and utility. So the only point to be considered in this revision is whether the plot in dispute is 'rented land', in terms of section 2(f) of the Act or not.

(3.) THE petitioner appeared as a witness and stated that it was agreed at the time the plot in dispute was let out to him that the respondents would construct a shop and a verandah thereon. The shop and verandah was got constructed by the respondents. The respondents demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per year after the construction of shop and verandah and he refused. In his cross-examination he stated that it was not mentioned in the rent note Exhibit A1 that the respondents would provide a shop and a veranadh. He admitted that it was got written in the rent note that he will not make any change over the plot in dispute. On the day the rent note was executed, only Gora Lal (brother of the respondents) was present. None of the respondents was present at that time. Gora Lal and not the respondents had agreed to get a shop and verandah constructed over the plot indispute. Gora Lal appeared as a witness for the respondents. He stated that the plot indispute was let out by Pawan Kumar respondent. It was rented out to the petitioner for doing business of fuel wood. Pawan Kumar respondent stated that he let out the site in dispute to the petitioner. He did not know for what purpose it was let out to him. The petitioner could use the plot for any purpose.