Baldev Sahai vs Ved Parkash

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner landlord against the Order dated 30th July, 1997, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gidderbaha. By this order, the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-landlord for directing the respondents-tenant to allow the landlord to enter into the demised premises along with building expert and photographer and inspect the shop in dispute after removing the false ceiling and ply on the wall. The same prayer was made by the landlord which was rejected by the learned Rent Controller and aggrieved by that order, the landlord had filed earlier C.R. No. 3338 of 1996 which was disposed of by this court on 20th August, 1996, which reads as under:-

"No ground for interference is made out at this stage. Dismissed, let the expert witness appear in the witness box and in case he experiences some problem in making report, it will be open to the petitioner to move an application and the same shall be considered on its merits".

After the above order was passed by this Court, the landlord examined expert, namely, Virinder Kumar Gupta, who in his statement before the court, stated that the real condition of the building could not be given until and unless the racks and ply of the building were removed. In view of the statement of this witness, the landlord filed the present application, I am informed that even the Expert also filed an application seeking the same relief which was dismissed vide the impugned Order dated 30th July, 1997.

Mr. Garg learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the statement given by the expert, the landlord should be given permission to take the expert and photographer into the demised premises and inspect the shop in dispute after removing the false ceiling and ply on the walls.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the records. I, however, do not find any merit in this petition. From the impugned order, I find that the landlord had filed another petition against the tenant for vacating the same shop on the ground that the tenant had constructed Parchhati in the shop which had impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. It is not disputed that petition is also pending. In those proceedings, the landlord had examined, the same expert Varinder Kumar Gupta, who had submitted the report with regard to the same shop. In those proceedings the matter came up before this Court in C.R. No. 639 of 1995 and the question before this Court was as to whether the landlord should be permitted to inspect the shop after removing the false ceiling and the ply on the walls. In those proceedings, C.R. No. 639 of 1995 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 20th July, 1995, the operative portion from the said order is reproduced below: -

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the revision petition deserves to be allowed. The grounds of eviction find mention in para No. 2 of the application, the relevant ground relates to the charges that the petitioner-tenant is guilty of impairing the value and utility of the shop in dispute. The onus of this issue is obviously upon the landlord. Since it is admitted by the parties that there exists a parchhati, it is for an expert to assess whether it has caused any damage to the walls or cracks etc. thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the shop in dispute. Admittedly, the tenant is a cloth merchant. Some of the photographs shown by the counsel for the petitioners prove his contention that the plywood had been fixed to the walls for the purpose of beautification and removal of such plywood fixed will cause a substantial financial loss to the petitioners and perhaps to tangible advantage to the respondent landlord. In any case, it is upto the respondent landlord to prove his case and thereafter seek the relief as the court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Resultantly, I accept the Revision Petition and set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 7.3.1995."

From the above Order dated July 20, 1995, I find that this point has already been examined by this Court and it was held that the plywood had been fixed to the wall for the purpose of beautification and the removal of the same will amount to substantial financial loss to the tenant. I fully agree with the observations given by this Court in the Order dated July 20, 1995.

Mr. Garg further submits that the earlier petition was only with regard to parchhati built by the tenant but in the present case, the case of the landlord is that the building has outlived its life and utility and was now in a highly dilapidated condition. According to my considered opinion, the landlord in one way or the other is seeking permission of the Court to remove the plywood fixed by the tenant with a view to cause substantial financial loss to the tenant, as has been observed by this Court in the earlier Order dated July 20, 1995.

For the reasons recorded herein above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.