CHAJJU RAM Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) CHHAJU Ram landlord sought ejectment of his tenant Som Nath and another from the premises in dispute, inter alia on the grounds of material alterations having been made in the demised premises, impairing the value and utility of a part of the same and the same having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and about the same being required for their own use and occupation after reconstructing the same. It was pleaded by the tenants that the alleged alterations of constructing the two rooms on the municipal land was with the consent of the previous owner. The present landlord purchased the property in dispute vide sale deed Ex. RX dated 6.12.1972; whereas the construction was raised prior thereto with the consent of the original landlord. It was also pleaded that, in fact, there are two tenancies and not one; the first having been created when the workshop was taken on rent on 10.11.1959 at the rate of Rs. 20/- per mensem and the Chaubara was let out to them on 5.10.1960 at the rate of Rs. 17/- p.m. The learned Rent Controller found that the tender of arrears of rent made by Som Nath tenant on 4.1.1977 was invalid as it was not made on the first date of hearing. It was further found that the tenants had materially altered the building in question and also impaired its value and utility. The plea of the landlord that the building in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that he required the same for his own use and occupation, was negatived. The tenants filed an appeal; whereas the landlord filed cross-objection challenging the findings of the Rent Controller against him. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the alleged material impairment by constructing two rooms was made by the tenants with the prior consent of the original landlord before the present landlord purchased the property vide sale deed Ex. RX. As a result thereof, the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenants have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by making alterations in the demised premises, was reversed. The other ground pressed before the Appellate Authority that the premises in question are unsafe and unfit for human habitation, was also negatived in appeal, as well. Ultimately, the eviction order was set aside. Pending this revision petition filed on behalf of the landlord, Civil Miscellaneous No. 2748-CII of 1987, was filed by virtue of which subsequent events said to have taken place during the litigation between the parties, were sought to be brought on the record. According to the affidavit filed by the landlord, after the filing of the ejectment application, the roofs of two rooms have fallen and the other are leaking profusely. It was also stated in paragraph 12 of the affidavit that, in fact, the respondents have purchased their own building in Sirhind Mandi and have shifted their residence there from the first floor of the building in dispute. In reply, the tenants filed an affidavit dated 16.7.87. Surprisingly enough, in the said affidavit, it was no where denied that the roofs of the two rooms had not fallen or that the tenants had not shifted their residence from the first floor of the building in dispute. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Shri Ashok Gupta, Advocate, was appointed as local commissioner to report, whether the roofs of two rooms of the demised premises had fallen as alleged in affidavit of the landlord, in paragraph 11, as well as leaking. He was also directed to find out the nature of the building alleged to be in occupation of the landlord, as stated in the affidavit of the tenant. The local commissioner filed his report dated 27.7.1987. He had stated therein that on inspection of the said two rooms of the building in dispute, the same were constructed just in front of the road of Grain Market. The roof of one of the rooms was made of tin sheet which was supported by a wooden plank whereas the roof of the other room has partly fallen. The local commissioner further found that he saw dampness in the roofs of the room and on inspection of the roofs of the two rooms on the first floor he found that there were repairs at 3 places by cement which are distinct. According to the report of the local commissioner the landlord was in occupation only of houses No. 3090, Ward No. 9 Anaj Mandi, Sirhind and the other rooms which were alleged in the affidavit of the tenant to be in occupation of the landlord, were being used as stores and were not fit for residential purpose. The learned counsel for the tenants pointed out that the two rooms, the roofs of which are stated to have fallen, did not form part of the demised premises. According to the landlord, these were unauthorised constructions; whereas, according to the tenants,. these constructions were made on the municipal land with the prior consent of the original landlord and therefore, the falling of the roof of any of those two rooms was of no consequence. The learned counsel also pointed out that the landlord did not occupy the premises which he got vacated for his married son Mahesh Kumar. Rather, the same were lying vacant and were being used as a store. Thus, argued the learned counsel, neither the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, as alleged, nor did the landlord require the same for his own use and occupation.