RAM KISHAN Vs. SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord Shankar Lal (now deceased) sought the ejectment of the tenant Ram Kishan from the premises in dispute which consists of a Nauhra and a Kothri let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. The ejectment was sought on various grounds, including the one that the tenant has materially impaired the utility and the value of the demised premises. It was alleged that the above the Kothri, there was a Bukhari and above the Bukhari there was a room and that this Bukhari belonged to one Mohlu Ram. It was pleaded that Ram Kishan tenant had demolished this Bukhari and had included the floor of this Bukhari in the Kothri in dispute. In the written statement it was pleaded that he had not done anything which may materially alter the premises in dispute. It was pleaded that the Bukhari belonged to one Mohlu Ram and that this Bukhari had fallen down. On the floor of this Bukhari was the roof of the Kothri under his occupation and that the roof of this Bukhari formed the floor of the upper storey and that due to heavy rain, both the roofs had fallen down and when Mohlu Ram and Shanker Lal failed to get the necessary repairs effected he had got repaired the roof of the Bukhari at this own cost. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant has demolished the above Bukhari and has thus tagged the same with the Kothri whereby the height of the Kothri has increased. Thus the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The eviction order was passed on this ground alone, though the other pleas of the landlord were negatived. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that whole approach of the authorities below is wrong and misconceived. It is the common case of the parties that the Bukhari over the Kothri in dispute did not belong to the landlord nor that was a part of the premises in dispute. The tenant has not done anything as regards the roof of the demised premises. He has only constructed the roof over the Bukhari. It was never a part of the demised premises. Thus on the allegations of the landlord it could not be held that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises in any manner. The landlord has not sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The specific plea taken is that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute which finding is wrong on the facts found by the authorities below. In his view of the matter, the petition succeeds, the eviction order set aside and the ejectment application is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision allowed.