Bakhshish Singh vs Surjit Singh and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order has been passed by the Appellate Authority.

The landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant from the house in dispute, inter-alia, on the ground that they bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation and that the tenants had materially damaged the house by improper use and carelessness thereby impairing the value and utility of the premises, and further they had removed a chappar that existed in the North- castern corner of the court-yard of the house, and also removed the hand-pump fixed in the court-yard and owned by the landlords, which acts too had impaired the value and utility of the house. The tenant denied these allegation and pleaded that the application was barred on the principle of resjudica a, in view of the earlier decision of the case by the Rent Controller in the year 976. The learned Rent Controller negathed the claim of the landlords on all the grounds, and, consequently dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the learned Appellate Aurhoriry maintained the findings of the Rent Controller on all other issues except on the ground that the tenants had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. According to the Appellate Authority, the tenants were guilty of impairing the value and utility of the premises thereby incurring tne liability of ejectment on that score. It was further held that the chappar in question had been removed by the tenants and, therefore, that being so, it amounted to impairment of the value and utility of the building. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the game, the tenant Bakshish Singh has filed this petition here.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no allegation in the ejectment application as to what extent the chappar existed in the court-yard and in what manner its removal, it any, had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. Thus, argued the learned counsel. in the absence of any allegations and any finding to that effect, no eviction order could be passed u/s 13 (2) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. On the other hand, learned counsel far the respondent suomitted that the tenant himself had admitted that not only the chapper was removed but he also raised certain other constructions. Thus, argued the learned counsel, from the admission of the tenant himself, he was liable for ejectment.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings and the evidence on record. The allegations in the ejectment are that the tenants, nave removed a chhapar that existed in the North Eastern corner of the court-yard of the house, and have also removed the hand-pump fixed there and owned by the landlords These acts have also impaired the house substantially and also impaired the value and utility of the house. In the written statement, the tenant denied these a legations and pleaded that they had not committed any act which would have impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. In, the replication filed, the stand taken is the application was reiterated. The landlord appeared in the witness-box as AW-1 but surprisingly enough he has not given the dimensions of the chhapar said to have been existing in the court-yard nor has he stated a word as to in what manner the removal of the said chappar, if any, had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The only statement made by him is that previously there was a chappar and one hand-pump in the demised premises, and the tenant had since removed the hand-pump. In cross-examination, he stated that the chappar was of tin sheets and he did not know who installed the hand-pump. The tenant appeared as RW-1 and denied that any chhapar as alleged, existed in the court-yard or he removed any such chhapar. On this evidence it could not be held that the landlord had made out a case for eviction on the ground that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. Even if we assume that some chhapar existed in the court-yard and the tenant removed the same, in the absence of any evidence as to in what condition the chhapar was and how he had impaired the value and utility of the same, and that too materially, no eviction order could be pased on that ground. In the circumstances, the petition succeeds, order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller, dismissing the rent application, is restored with no order as to costs.