KHUSHI RAM Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.1.1972 to 30th September, 1973 and the landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant on that ground. Another ground was taken that the tenant made material alteration which had impaired the value and utility of the premises. The tenant did not make any tender within time allowed by law and in the written statement took a plea that he had been allowed to repair the roof of the back room by an order passed in proceedings under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), which prevailed at the time of filing of the ejectment petition and he was allowed to spend Rs. 1000/- for doing so, but he had actually spent Rs. 1961.17 and since the amount allowed under Section 12 of the Act was more than the arrears of rent, he was not liable to be ejected. The other ground was denied.

(2.) TO start with the Rent Controller dismissed the application by order dated 27th February, 1976, but on landlord's appeal, the eviction order was passed by order dated 26.4.1976 on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant went to the Financial Commissioner in revision which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision keeping in view the observations of the Revisional Authority. The Appellate Authority, after remrad found that in pursuance of order passed under Section 12 of the Act, the tenant had been allowed to replace the roof of the back portion in which he was not to spend more than Rs. 1000/-. It was also found that the tenant was at liberty to replace the roof of the front portion but on his own expenses. As regards the replacement of the roof of the back room, it was found that the tenant had spent Rs. 347/-. Since the arrears of rent along with interest, house-tax and costs came to Rs. 733.60 it was concluded that after adjusting the amount spent the tenant was still in arrears and since no tender was made within time as permitted by law, eviction order of the tenant was passed on 6.4.1977. The other ground was found against the landlord. This is tenant's revision.

(3.) ALL that the learned counsel for the tenant has shown is that the receipts Exhibits R.1 to R.4 could not be ignored by the Appellate Authority and if material supplied vide these receipts is taken into consideration then the amount spent in repairs would exceed the amount due from the tenant. He further urges that in proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, the tenant was allowed to spend Rs. 347/- on labour charges; whereas the Appellate Authority has allowed Rs. 100/- (Rs. 90/- under one head and Rs. 10/- under the other), towards the labour charges. This matter has been considered by the Appellate Authority. Both the points have no merit because the tenant has repaired the front room also for which the landlord had not to pay as it clear from the order passed under Section 12 of the Act. That is why, the Appellate Authority has taken pains in finding out as to what was spent on the authorised repairs. Under Section 12 of the Act the tenant was permitted to spend Rs. 655/- towards material and Rs. 345/- towards labour charges. In fact, the tenant has spent Rs. 247/- towards material and Rs. 100/- towards labour charges, i.e. Rs. 347/- including white washing charges. In the order under Section 12 of the Act, over and above Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 50/- were also allowed to be spent for white washing. Hence, both the arguments are devoid of merit. Consequently, the Appellate Authority was right in ordering the eviction on this ground.