Amar Chand and Another vs Shanti Devi and Others

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The landlords have filed the present petition vide which they have assailed judgments and decrees passed by both

the Courts below whereby their petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ''the Act'') for ejectment

of the tenant -respondents had been dismissed.

Jag Ram (deceased), predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises, which is a shop, in the year

1952. The landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and impairing the value and utility of the demised

premises by constructing a Parchhati without their permission. The respondents tendered the rent on the first date of hearing and filed the written

statement and denied the allegation of constructing a Parchhati by them. It was pleaded that the suit premises were in the same condition in which

the same were let out to them. As the arrears were tendered on the first date of hearing, the ground of nonpayment of rent was given up. The case

was contested by the parties on the ground of impairment of the value and utility of the suit premises by constructing a Parchhati by the tenants

without the consent of the landlords. Both the Courts below found that the tenants are not guilty of impairing the value and utility of the premises in

dispute by constructing a Parchhati therein. The ejectment petition was, thus, dismissed.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced on record.

On going through the evidence adduced on record I am of the view that there are inherent contradictions in the evidence adduced by the

petitioners. 1 have come in the statement of Kuldip Kumar Petitioner that the alleged Parchhati was constructed two months prior to the institution

of the petition before the Rent Controller. It has also come in his statement that he had forbidden the tenant from constructing the Parchhati but he

did not pay any heed to his request and he refused to stop construction. However, during cross-examination he expressed ignorance about the

mason who had constructed the Parchhati but subsequently duringihe course of trial the landlords examined Surjit Mason as AW4. Surjit was

produced on January 14, 1986 but his name did not find mention in the list of witnesses filed on May 23, 1985. Kuldip Kumar petitioner was

examined on May 23, 1984. On that date he could not even tell the name of the mason, who had allegedly constructed the Parchhati. Further the

petitioners stated that Karies were placed on the Chokhat, however the site place (plan?) submitted by them shows the placing of one wooden

batten on the Chokhat and the other one the wall. Besides this, it has come in the statement of Surjit Mason (AW4), who was examined by the

landlords, that he was not asked to restrain from constructing the Parchhati, It has come in the examination-in-chief of Kuldip Kumar petitioner that

Jag Ram tenant placed goods weighing 100/500 maunds on the Parchhati. During his cross-examination he stated that the tenant keeps tobacco

and the machine on the Parchhati. He also stated that the tenant has a weighing scale made of iron and has no other thing made of iron. According

to the landlords, the Parchhati has been constructed by placing wooden battens on the Chokhat at the height of about 6-1/2 ft. The roof level is at

the height of 10/12 ft.; meaning thereby that there was space of 4/5 ft. between the roof and the Parchhati. In such a space tobacco and machine

or weighing scale of the weight of 100/150 maunds or weighing scale of he weight of 100/150 maunds could not be placed.

Further there are contradictions with regard to the time of construction of the Parchhati. Kuldip Kumar petitioner while appearing as A.W.I

stated that the Parchhati was constructed about 15/20 days prior to the filing of the ejectment petition. However, in the Para 8 of the petition it has

been pleaded that the Parchhati/Balcony was constructed about two months back. Even if the contradiction with regard to the timing of the

construction of the Parchhati is ignored, it has come on record that Jag Ram deceased had appeared as a witness against the landlords in a case

titled Amar Chand v. Hukam Chand on May 31, 1982 and the ejectment order was passed against Chand tenant on June 7, 1982. In such a

situation, it is highly impossible for the tenant to construct Parchhati in August, 1982. It has further come on record that the landlords had

previously filed an ejectment petition against Jag Ram tenant on the ground of change of user. In such like circumstances, the possibility of

construction of Parchhati by him in August, 1982 (as alleged by the landlords) was highly remote.

Both the Courts below were have concurrently held that no Parchhati was constructed by the tenant and also that the Parchhati had not

impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. These are concurrent findings of fact which cannot be interfered with by the High Court by

re-appreciating the evidence in the present revision petition.

In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts below. The revision

petition is without any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.