RAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent had filed the petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the premises in question. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 24.12.2012 dismissed the ejectment petition. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 22.12.2014. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners-tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the landlord had failed to establish that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the rented premises. In fact, the toilet in question was already existing at the spot. Moreover, the structure of the said toilet was a temporary one. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Raj Rani and another v. Krishan Bhatia and others, 2009 2 RCR(Rent) 662', wherein it was held as under:--

(2.) Learned counsel has next placed reliance on 'Ram Lal v. Smt. Chandro Devi, 1987 92 PunLR 581, wherein it was held as under-

(3.) In the present case, the landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and that the petitioners had materially impaired the value and utility of the rented premises by constructing a permanent toilet over the projection without his consent. Undisputedly, the toilet/bathroom is existing on the projection of the rented premises. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the toilet/bathroom in question, was already in existence when the premises in question was rented out to the petitioners or it had been constructed later by the tenant. In this regard, learned Rent Controller has placed reliance on copy of the order dated 23.1.2006 passed by the Rent Controller in earlier rent petition filed by Kasturi Devi against petitioner Ram Singh. In the order dated 23.1.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, the toilet in question was not described as disputed property. Statements of witnesses Sharif, Rahish and Data Ram recorded in the said proceedings were proved on record in the present proceedings as Exhibits P-5 to P-7. As per the affidavits Exhibits P-5 to P-7, it had not been averred that there was a toilet/bathroom constructed over the projection on the northern side of the Vented premises. In these circumstances, the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that till the passing of the order dated 23.1.2006 by the Rent Controller, the bathroom/toilet was not existing on the projection towards the northern side of the disputed property. The finding of the learned Rent Controller that the bathroom/toilet in question was not part of the tenant premises, was, thus, rightly upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.