CHARAN RAM Vs. SH. M.S. RANDHAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but the same has been set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant Shri M.S. Randhawa from the portion of Kothi No. 358, New Jawahar Nagar, Jullundur City, inter alia on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 12th August, 1974, from the residential portion which was given on rent for Rs. 200 per mensem, and secondly, he had materially impaired the values and utility of the premises in dispute by making additions and alterations, as also additional constructions on the first floor. These allegations were denied by the tenant in his written statement. The tenant admitted the tenancy but not under the landlords but claimed to be the tenant under one Dewan Chand, Property Dealer. It was further pleaded that the rent had been paid to Shri Dewan Chand and the final receipt is dated 30th March, 1981 which gives details of payments and that no addition or alteration, or any additional construction has been made, as alleged. The ejectment application was filed on 4th December, 1981. The learned Rent Controller negatived the plea of the landlords as regards the non-payment of arrears of rent. It was held that tenant was not in arrears of rent when the present application was filed and the rent due had already been paid, and the adjustments made vide Ex. R.1 for the repairs made by the tenant were valid as per statement of Dewan Chand himself. However, on the ground of material impairment of the value and utility of the premises in dispute, the leaned Rent Controller found that the tenant had made material alterations and constructions on the premises in dispute, and the same had materially impaired its utility. On that finding, eviction order was passed. In appeal filed by the tenant, the landlords also filed his cross objections, challenging the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of material impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises was set aside and it was found that the tenant had not been proved to have made any construction, much less without the consent of the landlord and, therefore, he was not guilty of impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises, As a result of that finding, eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, landlords have filed his petition.

(3.) ON the question of non-payment of arrears of rent, I do not find any force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In this petition, it appears that the dispute which has arisen between landlords and their agent Dewan Chand, Property Dealer, is sough to be settled here. It is not disputed that the tenant was inducted by Dewan Chand, Property Dealer, on behalf of the landlords. In case Dewan Chand had misbehaved with the landlords in any manner, the said controversy could not be settled in these proceedings. The tenant could not be evicted from the demised premises if any thing done by him was allowed by Dewan Chand who inducted him as a tenant. There is a letter (Ex.R2) written by Dewan Chand, dated 29th January, 1976, whereby he had authorised the tenant to carry out all sorts of repairs, sanitary works and necessary improvements etc., of the building and adjust the expenses incurred by him against rent. That being so, it has been rightly found by the authorities below that the tenant was not in arrears of rent, and was entitled to the adjustment of amount incurred by him towards repairs.