PREM KAUR Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dt. 11th of April, 1994 whereby the appeal filed by Ajit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) against Smt. Prem Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) was accepted and the order dt. 22-1-1993 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute was set aside.

(2.) According to the averments in the eviction application, Shri Bhulla Singh husband of the landlady was the owner of House No. 526, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. He expired in March, 1985, leaving a Will entitling the landlady to receive the rent from the tenant. The respondent is tenant on the entire ground floor of the said house consisting of drawing, dinning, two bed-rooms, kitchen, latrine, bath, verandah etc. at the rate of Rs.900.00 per month excluding water and electricity charges. Eviction of the tenant is sought firstly on the ground that the tenant neither paid nor tendered rent to the landlady from March, 1985 onwards and secondly on the ground that the tenant had demolished the front compound wall and constructed a big gate and iron railing on the open space without the written consent of the landlady and thereby has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.

(3.) The tenant in his written statement took up preliminary objections that the landlady had been receiving rent from him right from March, 1985 without issuing any receipt and that the landlady had not filed any suit for recovery of rent prior to the present ejectment application. It was further pleaded that the tenant had shown payment of rent in his income-tax return and that the landlady has filed the present ejectment application with mala fide intention to enhance the rent which was initially fixed at the rate of Rs.350.00 per month and thereafter it was increased to Rs. 400.00 and then to Rs. 500/and presently the tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 600.00 per month. It was next pleaded that the rent for the month of September, 1992 was sent by Money Order for payment to the landlady who refused to receive the same. On merits ownership of the demised premises as well as relationship inter se between the parties was admitted. However, it was pleaded that at present the rent payable was Rs. 600.00 per month and that rent from September, 199 2/11/1992 at the rate of Rs. 600.00 along with costs and interest was tendered for payment to the landlady on the first date of hearing. It was further pleaded that the family members of the landlady own car and buses and probably the gate was enlarged and widened to park car and buses belonging to the landlady. Other averments made in the application were denied.