RAJAN ARORA Vs. SHAM SUNDER TANDON AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present judgment shall dispose of CR No.2053 & 2572 of 2014, filed by the tenant, who is aggrieved against the order of eviction dated 27.03.2012, passed by the Rent Controller and the dismissal of the application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act'), for plugging the hole made in the roof of the tenanted premises. The tenant has also been unsuccessful before the Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeals on 04.01.2014. Since common judgment has been passed, dealing with both the disputes, the two present cases have been dealt with vide this common judgment.

(2.) The premises in question, bearing No.22, situated at Mandi Fentonganj, Jalandhar were let out to the petitioner-tenant at Rs. 3500/- per month, vide rent note dated 06.10.1994, since there was a 6% increase clause after every 3 years, ejectment was sought by the original landlady, Roop Rani Tandon, on the ground of arrears of rent from 01.07.2002 to upto date, and on account of subletting to respondent No.4. Additions and alterations were also subject matter of the eviction petition and it was alleged that flooring had been changed from brick work to cement plaster and cement thara in front of the shop had been made by installing batons in the walls of the shop, which had made the property unfit and unsafe for human habitation and it was in a dilapidated condition. The personal use and occupation of respondent No.1 being the son of the landlady, who was occupying one room in the 1st floor, for running his business of rice, was also pressed into action on the ground that it was not sufficient for running his business.

(3.) Respondent No.4 did not contest and the present petitioner opposed the petition on various grounds, mainly, that the petitioner was a counter-blast to the petition filed under Section 12 of the Act and also to the suit filed. The relationship of landlord-tenant was admitted and the arrears of rent were denied, including the allegation of sub-letting. No additions and alterations had been made in the property in question and neither any damage had been caused and that the property was in dilapidated condition. On account of threat of forcible dispossession by the original landlady and her son in August, 2002, the suit had been filed, which was decreed on 21.01.2004. It was alleged that respondent No.1 and the landlady had caused a hole in the roof so that rain water can enter into the shop, thereby, damaging the property and the goods of the petitioner, lying therein. A Local Commissioner was appointed to plug the said hole, illegally made in the corner of the roof, which had been done. The matter had also been reported to the police and an entry had been made and the police had visited the site. It was, accordingly, submitted that the tenant-petitioner was being harassed. Following issues were framed by the Rent Controller: