CHANDER KIRAN Vs. RAM RATTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition sought ejectment of the respondent from the first floor of house No. 171, Holi Mohalla, Gohana, by filing an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') The premises in dispute were fully described in a plan attached with the application which was later on proved on the record as Ex. A. 1. The premises consist of two rooms and an open terrace. The grounds for eviction pleaded by her, inter-alia, were that the respondent had neither paid nore tendered rent for the period from 13.9.1971 to 13.6.1972 and arrears amounting to Rs. 730/- were due from him on this account; that the respondent picks up quarrels with her and threatens to kill her which has made it difficult for her and her neighbours to live; and that he has removed the shutters of the door and has broken them. He has also burnt the electric fittings. The petition was opposed by the respondent, who inter-alia averred that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month only which included Rs. 3/- per month as electric charges and on this basis he made the tender of rent on the first date of hearing which was accepted by the petitioner under protest. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :-

(2.) THE findings on all these issues were returned in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner and as a result the ejectment application was dismissed. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Authority also failed and was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.1975. This is how she has filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have considered the above submissions and I find force in what has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. The ejecjment application was filed by the petitioner as far back as on 21.6.1972. There is no allegation therein for the case which is now sought to be made out on the basis of what the respondent stated in cross-examination. If any occurrence had taken place subsequent to the filing of the application for ejectment, it was incumbent on the petitioner to have amended her application and incorporated in clear terms such grounds which made out a case of nuisance within the meaning of clause (iv) of section 13(2) of the Act for ejectment of the respondent, but this was not so done. The matter does not end here. Besides her own statement as A.W. 6, the only other witness through whom this ground of ejectment has been sought to be proved is Balbir Singh A.W. 5. This witness simply stated that the respondent threatens the petitioner very often and throws dust and bad things in front of her door. He has rmoved the fittings of the house and the doors have been broken. The petitioner herself simply stated that the respondent uses the roof for preparing cowdungs, and refuse and dirt are placed in front in her house by him. He has created nuisance and has made her living miserable. The respondent deposed in his examination-in-chief as A.W. 5 that there were 4/5 tenants under the petitioner from whom she has got the premises vacated. He further mentions that once a quarrel took place between the parties and its cause was that Maksudan Lal A.W. who is a frequent visitor to the house of the petitioner once entered his premises when his wife and daughter were washing their clothes and did not have any cover on their heads. He remonstrated and protested that Makusudan Lal should not enter the house like this without notice. All this simply shows that there might have been a minor incident of a quarrel between the parties. If during the pendency of the ejectment application, any against the respondent at the instance of the petitioner full particulars thereof have not been brought on the record. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the respondent has forced other tenants to vacate her house. She cannot bank upon what is recorded during the course of the statement of the respondent in cross examination. The case for nuisance on the part of the respondent as set out in the application has not at all been proved. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the finding on issue No. 3 recorded by the authorities below.