VIJAY KUMAR Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have directed this revision petition against the order dated December 16, 1987 of the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, restraining them from raising any further construction or making any alteration to the detriment of the plaintiff-landlords during the pendency of the parent suit.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Raj Kumar and Mithan Lal landlords are owners of the factory in dispute comprising of one office room, one room for the machinery and some open space. This property was given on rent of Rs. 6000/- per annum from 1.11.1978 to 31.10.1981 though a rent note executed on 19.11.1978. The tenant continued enjoying the tenancy even after the expiry of the said period and paying the rent. Aforesaid Angan Lal died and his widow Mst. Sita Devi and daughter were arrayed as defendants. The premises in dispute allegedly became unfit and unsafe for human habitation inasmuch as its roof was supported with wooden props. It was alleged that the tenants without the consent of the landlords have started making material alterations in the demised premises by constructing two rooms and the construction of the third room is under progress. Alongwith the parent suit, an application for interim stay was also filed under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code Civil Procedure. This application was resisted by the defendant-respondents, contending that the condition of the building was quite safe and sound. It was also stressed that as per terms of the rent note dated 19.11.1978, the defendants were at liberty to make any construction in the demised premises without getting any further consent of the landlords and that the defendants would be at liberty to remove such construction or realise the tentative value of the said construction from the landlords at the time of vacation of the demised premises. They, however, admitted the factual aspect of the matter about raising the construction in the demised premises.

(3.) IN appeal, the learned Additional District Judge vide his impugned order restrained the tenants from raising further construction by holding that the terms and conditions of the rent note could not be operative after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy and that the tenancy would be governed by the statutory provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).