BASAKHI RAM HALWAI Vs. GOBIND KUMAR CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'). The revision has been filed by the tenant. The respondent-landlord had filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for a decree for eviction of the present petitioner/tenant on the ground of rent defaults. Briefly stated the contention by the landlord was that the tenant failed to pay the rent @ Rs. 200/- P.M. since 1.7.1976. He further contended that the tenant has raised the temporary construction without his consent. The landlord also made a reference to the rent-note of 19.5.1976, and contended that the tenant failed to execute the fresh rent-note after the expiry of the tenancy period as per the terms and conditions of the said rent-note. The tenant by his written statement contended that since 13 or 14 years (prior to 1978) he was tenant @ Rs. 35/- per month. He further claimed that under a misrepresentation, about two years back, the landlord got executed one rent-note under which he agreed that the present shop in occupation of the tenant shall be demolished and in its place a new shop shall be re-constructed and given in possession of the tenant @ 200/- per month as the rent. The tenant contended that the landlord demolished the shop, but did not re- construct it as though it was agreed upon under the said agreement. Under these circumstances, the tenant was constrained to raise the shed over the site of the shop at his own cost and he thus occupied the said temporary structure.

(2.) BY way of replication or rejoinder, the landlord denied the contention that he misrepresented the tenant that he would reconstruct new shop in place of old shop. Briefly stated, he denied the allegations made by the tenant.

(3.) THE counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted before me that the proved position in this case was that the original old shop had been demolished under the pretext that new shop shall be constructed in its place and tenant would be inducted in the new shop. It was contended that the tenant would be liable to pay Rs. 200/- per month only if the new shop had been occupied by him. Since new shop had not been constructed the tenant was constrained to carry on his business by raising a temporary shed on the suit site at his cost. Under these circumstances, the tenant was not at all liable to pay the rent, and no question of rent default would arise. It was, therefore, submitted that the tenant was not liable to be evicted. My attention was also invited to certain rulings, to which I will make reference in the course of this judgment.