PURAN CHAND Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision arising in a rent matter. The premises in dispute is a shop situated in the Mandi of Narwana. Ejectment therefrom was sought by Krishan Gopal landlord on the premises that Puran Chand, the tenant was in arrears of rent and secondly that the tenant had made material alterations in the demised premises, whereby he had made himself liable for ejectment under section 13 (2)(iii) of the Haryana-Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act). Since the arrears of rent were paid timely before the Rent Controller, that ground did not survive. The Rent Controller, however, on the second ground non-suited the landlord, but the Appellate Authority, Jind, reversed the decision of the Rent Controller which has given rise to this petition.

(2.) SOME of the undisputed facts which at the present stage need be focussed are : (i) The landlord owns three contiguous shops in the Mandi and the middle one is the premises in dispute. On one side is the shop tenanted with Mansa Ram Hari Chand and on the other side tenanted by Mangat Ram Om Parkash; (ii) The tenancy was formally written between the parties by means of document Mark 'A' dated Ist April, 1974, creating the tenancy for one year; (iii) The demised premises mentioned in Mark 'A' is the shop consisting of two pacca rooms (Khans) in front of which there was a platform (Chabutra) and a covering (Chappar); (iv) The shop in dispute originally belonged to Sita Ram, the father of the present landlord, and it came to the present landlord sometimes before the execution of the rent deed, and (v) Before Ist April, 1974, the petitioner was, for a number of years tenant under Sita Ram, the father of the landlord petitioner.

(3.) MR . D.S. Nehra, learned counsel for the tenant, petitioner, in support of his case, pointed out that the learned Appellate Authority committed a grave error in overlooking Exhibit RW4/2 and by misreading Exhibit RW4/1, the two documents on the basis of which it would become apparent that a stall stood constructed on the site in the shape of a room and that room made of wood and tin material was part of the demised premises. He thus contended that the view of the Appellate Authority to the contrary was based on ignoring relevant evidence. It is patent from the judgment of the Appellate Authority that he has nowhere referred to Exhibit RW4/2 but there is an oblique reference to Exhibit RW4/1 and not in the context in which Mr. Nehra has put across his case. These two documents had to be read in the light of the statements of Hukam Chand, Land Officer of the Municipal Committee, Narwana, in whose evidence these documents were introduced.