SATPAL Vs. SHAMBU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 1451-CII of 2019 Heard.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner would argue that though in the eviction application, there is no reference as to what construction has been made by the respondent but Sh. Satpal (since deceased) now represented by his LR appeared in the witness box and deposed about construction of three rooms, one kitchen and a toilet by the respondent-tenant. It is further argued that even the respondent-tenant has not denied having raised construction but took the plea that construction was raised in the year 1973 with consent of his previous landlord who passed away in the year 1979. It is vehemently argued that as the respondent-tenant has not denied raising of construction in the tenanted premises but has failed to establish his plea that the same was with consent of the landlord who died in the year 1979, orders passed by the courts may be set aside and the eviction application is allowed.

(3.) Perusal of eviction application (Annexure P1 Colly) makes it evident that Sh. Satpal son of Sh. Lachhman Dass filed application under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973 on the ground that the respondent has not paid arrears of rent since death of Lajja Dass @ Sunder Dass on 21/11/1979 and the respondent has raised construction over the vacant land without consent of his landlord. In the eviction application, there is no reference to what construction has been raised by the respondent much less an averment that construction made by the tenant has impaired materially value or utility or both of the demised premises. Sh. Satpal in his testimony (Annexure P-3) had stated with regard to construction of three rooms, one kitchen and a toilet but he did not depose that the additional construction has impaired value or utility of the tenancy premises.