NAND SINGH Vs. RAM NARAIN SAHOONJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord Ram Narain Sahoonja sought the ejectment of tenant Nand Singh from the premises consisting of two shops and a verandah by filing the ejectment application in the year 1975. The premises were left out on monthly rent of Rs. 70/- in the year 1960 for the purpose of running a dhaba. His ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing bhattis inside the premises; a wall and by making two openings in the southern wall without the landlord's consent. It was pleaded that the tenant had undertaken not to construct the bhattis inside the premises and that he had constructed the same on the municipal land. When the Municipal Committee had removed the bhattis constructed on its land, the tenant constructed them in the demised premises without the landlord's consent which materially impaired the value and utility thereof inasmuch as the smoke which the bhattis emitted had spoiled the walls of the shops and the heat of the bhattis had caused heavy loss to the walls and the roof of the shops. It was also pleaded that the smoke entered the office of the landlord who was an Advocate and that it was a permanent nuisance to him. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the premises were taken on rent for running a dhaba in the year 1960 and since then, he was running the same in the demised premises. The bhattis were in existence in the verandah since the date of the lease and thus, were never constructed on the Municipal land. The municipal land taken on tehbazari was being used for serving meals and refreshment to the customers. It was denied that the smoke had spoiled the walls and had impaired the value and utility of the building. It was also denied that smoke entered in the office of the landlord. According to the tenant two shops intervened between the landlord's office and the premises, in dispute. He further denied to have made any alteration in the premises, in question. According to him, the openings were in existence before the grant of lease and that the application for his eviction from the premises had been filed with a view to pressurise him to increase the rent to which he had not agreed. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had certainly committed such acts which had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. As a result, the eviction order was passed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority itself inspected the premises, in question, and recorded the inspection note dated May 1, 1979. On the basis of the said inspection note and the evidence on the record, he affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on the record.