Baldev Raj vs Harpreet Singh

Ujagar Singh, J.—This is a revision by the t(Sic)ant against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27-4-1984, accepting the appeal of the landlord and ordering eviction of the tenant from the demised premises.

The landlord, Respondent herein filed application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the tenant, revision Petitioner herein, 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 alteration, 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 resisted 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 30-11-1982 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 garrage. 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.

Out of the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:

Whether the Respondent has made material alteration and additions in the demised premises materially impairing the value and utility of premises? OPA

Whether the site plan attached with the application is incorrect? OPR

Relief

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 indicate 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.

In appeal, the learned appellate authority after discussing the evidence in detail has found that the demised premises was comprised of only one garage and open space. Total area of the demised premises was 31 feet x 51 feet and at a subsequent stage the tenant constructed a varandah raising the height of the wall by placing four raiters (beams) in the wall of the garage for construction of the roof on the varandah. The tenant had made holes in the said wall and thereby damaged the same Report Ex. A. 1 of Shri Parmod Bhardwaj AW1, who is an Engineer, mentioned specifically that roof of the work room i.e. a room adjacent to a garage, consisted of wooden beams supported by BC pillars on the Southern side. The wooden beams were installed on the wall of the garage by making holes in it and inserting the beams inside by completing the process through patching up the side space with the cement and this was done only a few years i.e. long after the premises was rented. According to the learned appellate authority raising the height of the boundary wall on the Western side or creation of a passage perse may not be sufficient to hold that the value and the utility of the demised premises has been damaged but these factors alongwith other construction could be taken into consideration. Thus, finding this the learned appellate authority accepted the appeal of the landlord Respondent and set aside the order of the Rent Controller and directed the tenant to be evicted from the demised premises.

The Petitioner''s counsel has urged that this construction alleged to have been made by the tenant-Petitioner had already existed before he took the premises on rent and in any case, the alleged construction did not impair the value and utility of the building as such. Rather he argued that this construction has raised the value and utility of the demised premises. The counsel for the Respondent-landlord vehemently argues that the finding given by the appellate authority is based on evidence and sound reasoning. This Court, sitting in revision, he argues, is not to set aside the finding lightly.

I have considered the whole case and the arguments of the learned Counsel. The real controversy between the parties can be easily determined by reference to the pleadings and the original rent note. In the beginning of the rent note the demised premises has been described as under: (Translation)

I, Baldev Raj is 19 years son of Bhagwan Dass son of Ami Chand resident of Jalandhar, Mohalla Rasta Gali Khatikwali House No. EL-152, Caste Dingra, Jalandhar City, am a tenant. Whereas one garage and vacant space without building adjacent to each other 51 feet in length and 31 feet in breadth in which only a garage and a small vacant place without any construction in it is there and its total area is 51 X 31 feet out of Kothi No. 679, Model Town, Jalandhar is being taken on rent by me from its owner Sardar Harbans Singh son of Sardar Karam Singh son of Sardar Kirpal Singh resident of Kothi No. 679 Model Town Jalandhar.

The other relevant portion of this rent note is also reproduced as under: (Translation)

Whatever construction will be made by me for my business, I will remove the same without getting any compensation from the owner.

The tenant himself also gave a note under this rent note in his own hand in Hindi and when translated it reads as under:

One garage and some vacant space 51 feet x 31 feet, 679 Model Town taken on rent from Sardar Harbans Singh Malak at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month with effect from 5-6-72. The subject matter of this rent note has been read over to me and accepted by me.

7-6-72

Baldev Raj Dingra.

Thus, the terms including the portion reproduced above are admittedly correct and the tenant-Petitioner has nowhere denied the same. In the presence of these terms, it can be safely said that there was no building in existence except one garage in the demised premises. The allegation of the landlord-Respondent that the tenant Petitioner had constructed a varandah placing 4 Shatirs in the wall of the garage for roof on the varandah thereby damaging the wall by making holes therein, has been correctly made and the reply thereto by the tenant in his written statement to the effect that the tenant Petitioner did not make any addition or alteration in the demised premises and his denial about constructing a varandah as shown in the plan, has not been correctly stated. Further averments in the written statement that this varandah was already in existence prior to the date when the tenant-Petitioner was inducted as a tenant and that the Shatirs were in existence before his tenancy was created are false and have been intentionally made to confuse the issue. There is no doubt that the tenant-Petitioner could make some constructions for running his business but this permission given in the rent note does not allow the tenant Petitioner to make any additional construction so as to amount to material alterations and additions impairing the value and the utility of the premises. The tenant Petitioner examined RW1 Chaman Lal, RW2 Ujagar Singh and himself as RW3, in support of his averments made in the written statement. RW1 Chaman Lal stated that he had seen the site in dispute for the last 15-16 years and earlier to the tenant-Petitioner one Shri Darshan Singh Phatianwala was a tenant in the premises in dispute and at that time he had one motor garage and a varandah having roof but without door. Thereafter, the Petitioner-tenant was inducted as a tenant and there is no change in the demised premises since then. The suggestions given to him with regard to the present description of the existing constructions were denied by him. Existence of a handpump earlier has also been denied by him. PW2 Ujagar Singh was examined on 21-5-1984 while the present petition was filed on 14-10-1982 and report Ex. A1 given by the expert PW1 Parmod Bhardwaj was given on 17-1-1984. This witness stated that he had visited the demised premises 12 years back and he had seen one garage a Chhapar. Earlier Darshan Singh was a tenant. This Chhapar consisted of Kanas and Balas having no door and even at the time when he saw it the premises in dispute was in the same condition as earlier. He also denied the existence of any hand pump, Both these witnesses do not render any help to the case of the tenant-Petitioner as put in, in his pleadings. The tenant-Petitioner supported his averments in the pleadings but in cross examination he admitted the site plan Ex. A 2 as correct and according to the spot at present. He admitted the execution of the rent note and admitted its contents to be correct. It is also admitted by him that all the Shatirs of the alleged varandah are placed in the wall of the garage on one side He is not prepared to shift his stand from the pleadings and stated that this hand pump was not there at the time of the creation of his tenancy. The landlord Respondent has supported his case by examining AW1 Parmod Bhardwaj, AW2 Surjit Singh who is his natural guardian.

The only point to be seen is whether the construction of a varandah by raising pillars and for constructing a roof on it with the support of wooden beams in the wall of the garage by making holes in it and thereafter completing the process by patching up the side spaces with cement, would amount to impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. Five holes have been made in the wall of the garage towards the varandah and in those holes the wooden beams have been inserted. This act certainly impairs the value and utility of the building of the garage. These wooden beams get support only on the wall and not by separate pillars raised under them. When the original wall was constructed, there could be no idea that the wall of the carage on this side would have the burden of five beams on it and the tenant Petitioner very well knew about it and if he wanted to have this construction it should have been brought to the notice of the landlord-Respondent or the varandah could be constructed in such a manner without touching the building of the garage. This construction is certainly a material alteration and in this situation, I have not been able to persuade myself to have a view different than that of the appellate authority with which the order of the Rent Controller was rightly set aside.

With the above discussion, this Civil Revision is dismissed, order of the appellate authority is affirmed. The tenant Petitioner is burdened with costs of this petition and the cost is assessed at Rs. 200/-. The Petitioner is directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises within months provided the Petitioner pays or tender arrears of rent as also the rent of the future period of 1 1/2 months, within fifteen days from today.