BALDEV RAJ Vs. HARPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision by the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.2.1984, accepting the appeal of the landlord and ordering eviction of the tenant from the demised premises.

(2.) THE landlord, respondent herein filed application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of the tenant, revision petitioner therein, from the tenancy premises. The grounds of eviction given in the application are : (i) that the tenant had not paid rent with effect from 1.4.1982 and (ii) that material additions and alterations, mentioned in paragraph 4(b) of the application, in the tenancy premises had been made by the tenant and these additions and alterations were carried out without the written consent of the landlord and the same have materially impaired the value and utility of the building in question. The eviction application was existed by the tenant, denying the allegations made therein. However, monthly rate of rent was admitted as Rs. 150/- vide rent note dated 7.6.1972 by Harbans Singh (deceased). It is further averred that the rent note was in respect of a garage, shed (Amarat) and open space in the portion of the building, bearing No. 679, situated at Model Town, Jullundur and the rent amounting to Rs. 1,200/- from 1.4.1982 to 30.11.82 at the said rate, Rs. 30/- as interest thereon and Rs. 25/- as costs, assessed by the Court, was said to have been deposited and therefore, it was urged that this ground of non-payment of rent was not available. The allegations relating to additions or alterations, as mentioned in the application, were denied. Construction of verandah in the premises at mark A, as shown in the plan attached, was also controverted. The shed, as alleged by the landlord as verandah, was in existence prior to the creation of the tenancy in favour of the tenant and the question of raising the height of the wall did not arise. The tenant also denied placing of any Chhatirs (rafters) in the wall of the garage. The same are said to be in existence before the tenancy was created. Harbans Singh (deceased) had let it out in the shape of Amarat. Construction of the boundary wall at mark BC and CD was also denied and removal of hand-pump from mark C was said to be wrong and incorrect, adding that there was no such hand-pump. No portion other than the tenanted premises was added to it.

(3.) THE parties led their evidence. After going through the file and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 against the landlord applicant and issue No. 2 against the tenant-revision petitioner. With these findings, the eviction application was dismissed. Under issue No. 1, the Rent Controller held that rent note Ex.P.3 would indictate that a hand pump was already installed in the demised premises and not a municipal tap for supply of water as stated by the tenant-petitioner, as the word pump has been used therein. The Rent Controller further observed that the rent note allowed the tenant to raise construction at his own costs with the condition that he could remove the same at the time of vacating the premises but without any compensation at that time. The conclusion, therefore, was drawn that the tenant had raised a compound wall and removed the hand pump but all this did not impair the value or utility of the building. Raising of the compound wall and removing of the hand pump had nothing to do with the demised building. The answer to the grouse of the landlord against the tenant for including some portion of the demised premises for raising the compound wall and for making some construction adjacent to the garage and also getting electricity at his own costs, was that the same would not amount to violation of the rent note.