HARBANS LAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition. Vinod Kumar landlord filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for ejectment of the tenants on the grounds, namely, non-payment of rent, premises in dispute having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation - the building being an old structure constructed about 100 years back and that most of the building has fallen down. In addition thereto, eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant has changed the user of the premises in dispute from hotel to fruit shop without the written consent of the landlord and that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair the value and utility of the demised building by effecting unauthorised structural changes. Not only this, Harbans Lal tenant has parted with possession of the demised premised in favour of Ashwani Kumar and Rajinder Kumar (Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the present revision petition).

(2.) THE tenants contested the application and filed written statement denying the allegations of the landlord.

(3.) RENT Controller examined issues No. 1 and 3 together and held that the premises in dispute consisted of one big hall and one room behind the hall and that the roof had fallen down which the tenant had reconstructed having divided the same into two shops. Roof of one shop is constructed with wooden planks whereas the roof of the other shop is constructed with tin sheets and so the roof of the newly constructed shops is of temporary nature and can fell at any time. Rent Controller further held that the tenant has made material changes/alterations in the premises in dispute. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the value and utility of the building in dispute has also diminished on account of these material alterations and changes. Accordingly, both these issues were decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. Under issue No. 2, the Rent Controller held that the tenant has changed the user of the premises in dispute. Issue No. 4 was decided against the landlord. Resultantly, the application for ejectment was accepted and a direction was issued to the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within three months from the passing of the order.