LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-58

PADAM SAIN Vs. MEENA AND OTHERS

Decided On January 19, 2017
Padam Sain Appellant
V/S
Meena And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved against the eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 15.11.2014 on the grounds of material alternation of the demised premises without the consent of the landladies/respondents.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent/landladies that respondent was inducted as a tenant in the one 'khan' of shop by the previous owner and predecessor in interest of the appellants, namely, Om Parkash who had newly constructed the entire building of which the shop is a part comprising eight shops and the residential area. The tenant had executed a rent note dated 15.07.1980 and the period of tenancy was from 14.07.1980 to 13.10.1980 @ Rs.500.00 per month, which was increased to Rs.1,000.00 per month. They had become the owners of the shop in question through decree against Om Parkash their father and the tenant's status had became of a statutory tenant under the payment of the said amount and he was continuing in possession.

(3.) Resultantly, the eviction petition was filed on 17.05.2002 for arrears of rent from 01.10.1999 along-with the issue of material impairment and value of the shop in question on account of replacing and raising the front beam of shop upto the height of 3 feet raising level of the floor upto 11/2 and by demolishing the back wall measuring 9x10-1-4 and installing a beam therein. A new shutter had also been put over of different size and, therefore, the tenant had endangered the upper two stories of the shop by breaking the beam, which was very strongly built and had replaced the same by a weak beam. It was further averred that he has demolished the backwall of one 'khan' shop and installed the beam therein and trespassed into the rear portion of the building now owned by the brothers of the landladies and therefore deprived the passage of the rear portion. The premises were also required for the brother of the appellants Hemant Kumar who is stated to be a member of the Sirsa District Bar Association and wanted to start practise.