SATYA WATI Vs. INDERPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the landlady who is aggrieved by dismissal of eviction petition filed under Section 13(2)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, 'the 1949 Act'). The said ground is as unden- 12(2)(ii). That the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord- (a) xx xx xx (b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or Case set up in the eviction petition was that the respondent was a tenant in Booth No. 48, Sector 27, Chandigarh, under the petitioner. As per terms of the conveyance deed dated 21.10.1967, the same could be used only for general trade. The tenancy started under lease deed dated 1.8.1973, which carried the following clause: If any transferee has failed to pay consideration money or any installment thereof on account of sale of any site, or building or both under Section 8 or has committed a breach of any other conditions of such rule the E.O. may issue notice in writing, call upon the transferee t;o show cause why an order of resumption of the site or building or booth may not be made as the case may be, and forfeiture of the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof (which is in no case shall exceed 10% of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the sale of site or building or booth) should not be made." It was alleged that the tenant in violation of the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 (in short, 'the 1952 Act'), started carrying on trade of repair/painting/welding of scooters/motor-cycles etc. as a result of which Estate Officer issued notice dated 15.7.1981 threatening to resume the site and asking the petitioner to appear and show cause why the site be not resumed and amount not exceeding 10% of the total amount of consideration money be not forfeited. The tenant also damaged the structure of the demised premises and materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises; floors were broken; the walls were blackened with petrol, diesel and mobil oil and the plaster of the walls was removed by inserting nails etc. Damage to electricity fittings were also alleged.

(2.) The tenant denied having executed lease-deed dated 1.8.1973. He stated that the property was taken for the business of sale of auto spare parts and was being used for the said purpose. Notice under the provisions of the 1952 Act was manipulated and no repairing/painting/welding of scooter/motor-cycles etc. was being done. Following issues were framed: 1. Whether the respondent has started using the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out? OPP 1A. Whether the petition is not maintainable for the preliminary objection taken by the respondent? 2. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises as alleged? OPP

(3.) Relief. 3. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. It was held that the tenant was not proved to have materially impaired the value or utility of the demised premises. Reasons given under Issue No. 2 are that the petitioner did not enter the witness box; her husband appeared as attorney and only gave a self- serving statement; no Engineer or architect was examined to prove any damage.