BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against order dated 31.10.2002 passed by 1st. Additional District Judge Jammu in appeal against order dated 17.8.2000 passed by Rent Controller (CJM) Jammu. Briefly stated facts as revealed from record are that petitioner herein is a tenant of shop situate at Chand Nagar, Jammu. Shop was obtained about 40 years back on monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. Rent deed was executed between respondent/landlord and petitioner/tenant. On 15.5.1999, petitioner filed an application under section 27 of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966 against father of respondent namely Dina Nath seeking direction for replacement of wooden doors by a steel shutter or to make some solid arrangement with a view to make the doors more strong and effective for saving the property of the petitioner and also direction for raising ground level of the floor of the shop. It was stated before Rent Controller (CJM) Jammu that shop has not been repaired by the landlord since the inception of tenancy in the year 1972. Wooden doors are in dilapidated condition and are required to be replaced by a steel shutter. It was further alleged that ground level of the floor of the shop is required to be raised so as to make shop habitable and usable. In raining season, rain water enters the shop and it is not possible for the petitioner to carry on his business.

(2.) During pendency of the application before Rent Controller (CJM) Jammu, Girdhari Lal son of Dina Nath respondent herein made an application for his impleadment as party respondent on account of the fact that shop in question has fallen to his share in family partition. This application was allowed by Rent Controller (CJM) Jammu. Petitioner led his evidence with a view to establish that shop is in bad condition and its wooden doors are also in dilapidated condition. He also tried to establish that rain water enters the shop during raining season and there is need to raise level of the floor. On the other hand, respondent also led his evidence to prove that wooden doors are not in dilapidated condition are there is no need to raise ground level of shop as it has sufficient height i.e. two feet from the road level. Respondent resisted the petition on the ground that replacement of wooden doors and raising of level of the floor of the shop do not constitute repair and it amounts to structural alteration which is impermissible under section 27 of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966. After hearing both the parties, Rent Controller (CJM) Jammu held that replacement of wooden doors by a steel shutter and raising of ground level of the shop does not come within the purview of section 27 of J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966. He accordingly dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 17.8.2000. An appeal was preferred against this order before learned 1st Additional District Judge Jammu being appellate authority.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that repair sought is permissible under section 27 of J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966. It is stated that replacement of wooden doors by an iron shutter fall within meaning of repair. It is submitted that raising of ground level is intended to make the shop habitable and useable and also fall within meaning of repair and does not come within purview of reconstruction or construction. Reliance is placed on (Ullal Dinkar Rao v. M. Ratna Bai, 1958 AIR(Mys) 77) wherein it was held that "replacement of the roof or the floor or a wall of the cow shed or the bath room would be a repair but not their entire reconstruction".