VED PARKASH Vs. DARSHAN LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below. The landlord, Ved Parkash, sought the ejectment of his tenant from the shop in dispute bearing No. 6313, Ward No. 3, situate in Jain Bazar, Ambala City, inter alia on the ground that the tenant had made structural alternations in the shop in dispute by removing the wall adjacent to shop No. 6312, and thereby the tenant distenant had committed an act by which he has impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute.

(2.) IN the written statement, it was pleaded that Darshan Lal was a tenant of shop No. 6313 and was also the tenant of the adjoining shop NO. 6312, owned by Amrit Lal, who was the brother of the landlord Ved Prakash. However, it was denied that the wall was removed by him, as alleged.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no finding that how the said removal of the wall has impaired the value and the utility of the demised building, and in the absence of any such plea and the finding, no eviction order could be passed on that ground. It was further contended that in any case, it is a clear case of acquiescence because the ejectment application was filed after about 16 years from the alleged removal of the intervening wall between the two shops. In support of this contention, he referred Shrimati Narinder Kaur and others v. Arjan Dass, 1981 RCR 194; Messrs New Garage Limited v. Sardar Khushwant Singh and another, 1951 P.L.R. 136 (D.B.);De. Gopal Das Verma v. Dr. S.K. Bhardwaj and others, 1957 P.L.R. 355; Mukesh Chand and others v. Jamboo Pershad and another, 1963 P.L.R. 285;(D.B.);Shri Partap Chand v. The Automobile Association of Upper India, 1963 P.L.R. 262, which judgment was later on approved by the Supreme Court as well and reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1305.