URVINDER KAUR Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is challenge to the order dated 5.9.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was declined.

(2.) As per petitioner, on the basis of said statements, she had made all the arrangements for carrying out the repair but the respondent refused to allow her to do so. Petitioner also made an offer for carrying out construction work at her own expenses but to no effect. Thereafter, another application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was filed. More so, on being given notice, respondent contested the application inter-alia taking the plea that he agreed to enhance the rate of rent on the condition that certain repairs and improvements were to be made at the expenses of the landlord and the Court below, after framing issues and appreciating the entire controversy, dismissed the application that petitioner failed to prove that respondent willfully refused to comply with the directions dated 23.8.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite having made statement before the Court by learned counsel for the respondent and subsequently by the respondent himself and the order having been passed by the Court, respondent failed to carry out his legal obligation. But the Court below wrongly dismissed the application and the said order be set aside and application be accepted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner was required to carry out the repairs as agreed and as per statement made before the Court, but the said repairs were not carried out and as such there is no question of any liability to make payment of enhanced rent or arrears thereto and the Court below rightly dismissed the application and present petition be dismissed. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and appreciated relevant facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that matter in controversy is very short and simple that earlier, respondent made statement that in case landlord raises the level of the roof and shutter, the tenant would be liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. The statement made by respondent-Brij Bhushan on 23.8.2003 reads as under:-