BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. P S RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgement shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 11 of 2006 and Civil Revision No. 51 of 2007. In both the revision petitions, petitioners are tenants, but respondent is common land-lord. Civil Revision No. 11 of 2006 has been filed against judgement, dated 21.12.2005, of Appellate Authority (III), Shimla in case No. 47-S/14 of 2005/03 affirming the order dated 11.12.2002 passed by Rent Controller (3), Shimla in case No. 65/2 of 1999. Civil Revision No. 51 of 2007 has been filed against judgement dated 3.4.2007 passed by Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 141-S/14 of 2005 and in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 145-W/14 of 2005 dismissing the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 141-S/14 of 2005 and allowing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 145-S/14 of 2005 on the grounds of requirement of premises for reconstruction and re-building by the land-lord.

(2.) The respondent- landlord had filed ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent, nuisance, reconstruction and the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. It was pleaded that two rooms shop was rented out to petitioner by respondent in Raju Building, Tutu vide agreement dated 7.1.1991 on Rs. 1600/- per month. The petitioner surrendered one shop in the year 1992, the rent of the shop in occupation of petitioner was enhanced from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 900/- per month in January 1996. The petitioner had not paid the rent since 1.3.1996. The respondent requires the shop for reconstruction. He had initially constructed the premises for non-residential purpose, but now due to paucity of accommodation, he wants to convert the same into residential one and intends to provide stairs to the upper storey of the building. The existing stairs of the building were broken by Public Works Department. The reconstruction work of the stairs cannot be carried out unless the premises is vacated by the petitioner. The petitioner is also guilty of such acts with respect to the shop in question by which he has materially impaired the value and utility of the entire building. The petitioner is doing the business of welding and uses great force for cutting iron rods in the premises, as a result of which the lintel of his building has been broken and holes have appeared in the same. The septic tank of the building has also been damaged due to such acts. The petitioner is causing nuisance in the neighbourhood inasmuch as he carries on welding work in late hours of the night, which causes disturbance to others.

(3.) The petition was contested and preliminary objections of maintainability, lack of cause of action, estoppel and suppression of material facts were taken. It was pleaded that petitioner and his employees work in the premises during day time. The petitioner is running business of auto works in the shop. The rent of the premises was increased to Rs. 900/- in January 1997. The additions or alterations materially impairing the value and utility of the shop were denied. It was pleaded that rent of the shop till July 1999 had already been paid. The premises was constructed in the year 1989-90. The premises is required for reconstruction. It was denied that petitioner intends to convert the shop into a residential premises. It was denied that premises in question is required for construction of stairs. The stairs exist from the ground floor up to 5th floor of the building. The respondent was well aware that he had rented out the shop to petitioner for carrying on the business of welding, steel fabrication and auto workshop. The existence of septic tank on the spot has been denied. In rejoinder, respondent has reasserted his case.