KRISHAN LAL Vs. JAGDISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost battle concurrently before the courts below, the petitioner-tenant knocked at the door of this Court by filing the instant revision petition praying for acceptance of the revision petition and setting aside the orders passed by them whereby the petitioner was granted two months' time to vacate the demised premises.

(2.) THE facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that originally a petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by Landlord Mehar Chand against the tenants, namely, Krishan Lal and Hari Chand, which was subsequently continued by Jagdish Kumar, the successor-in-interest of Mehar Chand. It was been alleged in the petition that the petitioner and Hari Chand were tenants under respondent No. 1 of the shop in question situated at Railway Road, Rewari. It has been further averred in the petition that the tenants made additions and alterations in the shop in question, which had resulted in the impairment of value and utility of the shop by removing intervening wall, between the two bays of the shop, by placing girders below the roof, by constructing a water tank in the shop, which causes seepage in the walls and further by raising the level of the floor of the shop in question thereby reducing the height of the demised premises. The plea of change of user of the shop by the tenants was also raised by the landlord

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller after framing necessary issues and evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that the tenants had carried out additions and alterations in the demised premises without the consent of the landlord and were liable to be ejected on that ground and the remaining issues were decided against the landlord. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding recorded by the Rent Controller, the tenants preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate authority, Narnaul, who, after re-analysing the case of the tenants on the basis of the material available on the record, recorded a finding of fact, thereby affirming the reasoning given by the Rent Controller on the point of impairment of the utility of the building in question without the consent of the landlord, which ultimately resulted in dismissal of the appeal filed by the tenants and thus thereby granting two months' time to them to vacate the premises in question. Finding no other alternative against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, the petitioner-tenant came up in revision before this Court raising number of pleas therein.