LAWS(P&H)-1979-9-55

SITAL PARSHAD Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

Decided On September 08, 1979
SITAL PARSHAD Appellant
V/S
JUGAL KISHORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eviction application filed by the landlord-petitioner under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), was dismissed by the Rent Controller. Appeal by the landlord-petitioner also met the same fate. The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, dated August 9, 1973.

(2.) The eviction was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent for four months, material alterations in the demised premises without the constant of the landlord-petitioner by demolishing one room and converting two rooms-office and store to one room, installation of lathe machine and pullies high up to the air and by running a shaft on these pullies thereby creating nuisance to the determent of the neighbouring building and also by blocking the main passage of the bungalow by spreading logs of wood. As all the arrears of rent, taxes etc. with interest were paid by the tenant-respondent on the first hearing, the first ground did not survive. After framing of the issues and the adducing of evidence on both sides, it was held by both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, that none of the grounds, as alleged by the landlord-petitioner had been proved. The eviction application was thus dismissed. Regarding the alleged ground of material alterations in the demised premises, the case of the landlord-petitioner was that the tenant-respondent had pulled down one room and turned the other two rooms into one, but it was not averred in the petition that the tenant-respondent by these alterations had committed such acts as were likely to impair materially the value or utility of the premises so as to attract the provisions of section 13(2)(iii) of the Act. Besides, even on merits, this ground could not be sustained. According to Rakab Dass, AW five rooms had been let out to the tenant-respondent out of which four rooms were exiting, at the time of his making the statement, as a result of the removal of the intervening wall of two rooms. According to his deposition, when he passed here the property, in dispute, he was some masons and Labourers working there. On enquiry, it was disclosed that the roof of the premises was in a dangerous condition and the same was being replaced by converting two rooms into one. At that time, neither the landlord-petitioner nor the tenant-respondent, was present and the witness was not in a position to state as to at whose instance the alteration work was being executed by the masons and the labourers. According to Ram Nath, A.W. these alterations were carried out by the tenant respondent in 1970. He was an interested witness as according to his own admission, when he filed an ejectment application against one Roshan Lal, the real brother of the tenant-respondent, the landlord-petitioner, was one of his witnesses. It was also admitted that his shop was located at a instance of two furlongs from the premises, in dispute. According to the statement of the landlord-petitioner himself, these alterations were carried out by the tenant-respondent without his consent. However, it was conceded that before December, 1968, the rent was Rs. 65/- per mensem and thereafter, it was increased to Rs. 80/- per month. According to him, this increase was due to the addition of house-tax in the rent. According to his further deposition. The flooring and the roofing of these two rooms continued to be the same after alteration and the only alteration was the removal of the intervening wall. As against this, according to Satnam Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, appearing as witnesses for the tenant-respondent, the said alteration in the building had been carried out by the landlord-petitioner himself though at the instance of the tenant respondent and as a consequence, the monthly rent was increase to Rs. 80/-. According to the deposition of the tenant respondent, the premises had been taken on rent in August, 1966, at the rate of Rs. 65/- per mensem vide rent note, Exhibit R. 2. At the time of leasing the premises, the landlord-petitioner himself had installed a machine which was purchased by the tenant-respondent which was evidence by the receipt, Exhibit R1 from December, 1968, the rent was increased to Rs. 80/- per month. The receipt, Exhibit R3, showing the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- did not disclose if any house-tax had been added to the rent. According to the landlord petitioner, with effect from December 1968, rent was changed at the rate of Rs. 64/- and a sum of Rs. 16/- per month was added on account of house tax. Corroboration was sought to be furnished from two receipts dated June 18, 1970 and May 1, 1970. From these receipts, it cannot be made out, as alleged, that the house tax to the rate of house tax had been imposed in December, 1968, or the rate of house tax of the tune of Rs. 16/- per mensem had been increased at that time.

(3.) According to the conclusions of the Appellate authority, the evidence of the landlord-petitioner was vague and one of the two witnesses was clearly interested and the plea of the landlord-petitioner regarding the additional tax in the rent was also not established by any satisfactory evidence. On the other hand, the evidence of the tenant-respondent; both oral and documentary; was held to be credible. This conclusion of the Appellate Authority is based on correct assessment of the evidence on record. No material has been brought out to warrant the reversal of this conclusion.