AMRIT LAL WALIA, ADVOCATE Vs. BHAGWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction orders had been passed by both the authorities below. The landlord Bhagwant Singh filed the ejectment application on 6th November, 1982 of his tenant Amrit Lal from the demised premises consisting of House No. 54-L, Model Town, Jalandhar City. It was on a monthly rent of Rs. 57/- per month. The ejectment of the tenant was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1976, that the tenant has made additions and alterations in the demised premises and has thus materially impaired its value and utility. According to the landlord, the tenant has converted the verandah into a room and has provided door to House No. 77. He also constructed one bathroom by raising two walls. This bathroom is without any roof. The tenant has also converted the verandah and defunct latrine into one bigger room. He has also constructed another water closet towards house No. 77. The third ground was that the landlord needs the premises for his personal use and ocucpation and that of his family members. The accommodation already in his possession is insufficient. He does not possess any other residential house except the one situated at New Railway Road in which he is living at present. It has only two rooms which were insufficient for him, his wife and for his three married sons. He further stated that he has not vacated any residential building after the enforcement of the Act.

(2.) THE stand taken by the tenant was that the rent for the period from October 1, 1976 to August, 1982 already stood deposited in the eralier ejectment application and thus he tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 57/- per month with effect from September 1, 1982 to January 31, 1983, along with Rs. 20/- as interest, and Rs. 30/- as costs. This tender was accepted by the landlord under protest. It was further averred that the petition was barred under Section 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as the controversy between the parties has already been decided by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Nothing new has happened since the decision of the earlier petition.

(3.) IN appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller so far as non-payment of arrears of rent and materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises is concerned. However, on the question of bonafide requirement, the finding of the Rent Controller was reversed. Ultimately, the eviction order was maintained vide order dated 20th May, 1987. The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted that the arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1976 till August, 1982 was already deposited in the earlier ejectment application. This is amply proved by the High Court order dated January 22, 1986, in C.R. No. 3507 of 1985. It was observed therein that arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1976 to May 30, 1979 were deposited by the tenant and were withdrawn by the landlord on July 26, 1983. He further submitted that even if it is assumed that the rent deposited was less for one month even then on the first date of hearing the tenant tendered the rent upto January 31, 1983, whereas the rent due at the time of filing the eviction application was only up to September 1982, and, therefore, rent for three months was deposited in advance which could be adjusted towards the rent of one month. Thus argued the learned counsel the deposit made earlier was a valid one in view of the Supreme Court judgment in AIR 1980 SC 1708 and AIR 1980 SC 138. He further submitted that the tenant did not make any alterations in the demised premises as to cause its material impairment. Moreover, the alleged alterations already existed in the year 1975, as admitted by the landlord in his earlier statement, dated March 1, 1975, copy exhibit A-2. Thus, argued the learned counsel that the alleged construction does not amount to materially impair the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of this contention he referred to 1981(1) RLR 401, AIR 1987 SC 617; 1987(1) RCR 326 (Om Parkash's case) and 1988(2) RCR 419 (SC); 1988 HRR 614 (Sh. Om Pal's case).