Gian Chand vs Parkash Chand and Others

J.M. Tandon, J.—The Respondents are the owners of a small plot of land within the Municipal limits of Barnala. It was let out to the Petitioner for one year (15th October, 1973 to 14th October, 1974), at Rs. 700/- per month on 4th October, 1973, vide rent note Exhibit A-l. The Petitioner did not vacate the plot after the expiry of the lease period. He constructed a room and a verandah over the plot and started running a Karyana shop. In May, 1975 the Respondents filed a petition for ejectment against the Petitioner on the ground that the latter had made construction over it without their permission and the same has materially impaired its value and utility. The Rent Controller held that the Petitioner had made construction over the plot in dispute without the permission of the Respondents and the same has materially impaired its value and utility. He further found that the plot in dispute was not covered by the definition of ''rented land'' in terms of Section 2(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The ejectment petition of the Respondents was consequently dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 23rd July, 1977. The Respondents filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, which was allowed by the appellate Authority, Barnala, by order dated 16th September, 1977 The appellate Authority found that the plot in dispute had been let out to the Petitioner for commercial purposes and as such it was covered by the definition of ''rented land'' in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act. The order of the Rent Controller was consequently set aside and the Petitioner was ordered to be ejected. The Petitioner has assailed the order of the appellate Authority in the present revision.

The only argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the plot in dispute was not let out to the Petitioner for the purposes of being used principally for business or trade and as such it is not ''rented land'' in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act. The Respondents therefore, could not maintain the ejectment petition under the Act against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly conceded that in case the plot in dispute is held to be ''rented land" in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act, the present revision shall be liable to be dismissed on the ground that he made construction thereon resulting in material impairment of its value and utility. So the only point to be considered in this levision is whether the plot in dispute is ''rented land'', in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act or not.

It is not disputed that if the plot in dispute had been let out to the Petitioner in October, 1973, for the purposes of business or trade it shall be ''rented land'' in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act. The rent note executed by Gian Chand on 4th October, 1973 in favour of the Respondents with respect to the plot in dispute is silent about the purpose for which it bad been rented out. The plot in dispute is very small and is situated within the Municipal limits. The Petitioner constructed a room and a verandah over this plot soon after it was let out to him and started running a Karyana shop therein.

The Petitioner appeared as a witness and staled that it was agreed at the time the plot in dispute was let out to him that the Respondents would construct a shop and a verandah thereon. The shop and verandah was got constructed by the Respondents. The Respondents demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per year after the construction of shop and verandah and he refused. In his cross-examination he staled that it was not mentioned in the rent note Exhibit A-l that the Respondents would provide a shop and a verandah. He admitted that it was got written in the rent note that he will not make any change over the plot in dispute. On the day the rent note was executed, only Gora Lal (brother of the Respondents) was present. None of the Respondents was present at that time. Gora Lal and not the Respondents had agreed to get a shop and verandah constructed over the plot in dispute. Gora Lal appeared as a witness for the Respondents. He stated that the plot in dispute was let out by Pawan Kumar Respondent. It was rented out to the Petitioner for doing business of fuel wood Pawan Kumar Respondent stated that he let out the site in dispute to the Petitioner. He did not know for what purpose it was let out to him. The Petitioner could use the plot for any purpose

It is from this evidence that we are to find out if the plot in dispute had been rented out for the purposes of being used principally for business or trade Pawan Kumar Respondent is one of the landlords. He admittedly let out the plot in dispute to the Petitioner. He is categoric that he did not know for what purpose it was let out to the Petitioner and that the Petitioner could use it for any purpose. Gora Lai is the brother of the Respondents He has also slated that the plot in dispute was let out to the Petitioner by Pawan Kumar Respondent. He has, however, added that it was rented out for doing business for fuel wood It was orally agreed that the Petitioner would use the plot in dispute for fuel wood business. In the face of the categoric stand of Pawan Kumar Respondent, who had admittedly let out the plot in dispute to the Petitioner that the latter c"i Id use it for any purpose, it cannot be inferred from the bald testimony of Gora Lal that the plot was let out for the purpose of being used principally for business or trade. The plot in dispute cannot be treated ''rented land'' in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act unless it is held to have been specifically let out for the purpose of being used principally for business or trade. The Respondents have failed to prove that the plot in dispute had been let own to the Petitioner for the purposes of being used for business or trade.

The finding of the Appellate Authority that it is proved from the testimony of Gora Lal that the plot in dispute had been let out for the purposes of being used principally for business or trade cannot be sustained The Respondents, therefore, could hot maintain their petition under the Act for ejectment of the Petitioner from the plot in dispute.

In view of the discussion above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller restored. There will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.