Kartar Singh, Amarjit Singh and Rattan Singh vs Amar Singh

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present revision petition is by the landlord challenging the order dismissing the ejectment application of the respondent on the ground of change of user and material Impairment of the value and utility of the building.

Respondent Amar Singh was inducted as a tenant in the year 1951 at monthly rent of Rs. 100/- in a vacant land by Mangal Singh and Banta Singh, previous owners. After death of Mangal Singh, property has been inherited by Kartar Singh and Tarsem Kaur. However, Tarsem Kaur has sold her share to petitioner Nos. 7 and 3 i.e. sons of Kartar Singh. It was alleged that the tenant is liable to be evicted on account of non-payment of arrears and that construction has been made without consent of landlord-petitioners and that such construction materially impairs the value and utility of the demised premises.

The tenant respondent, on the other hand, has denied the rate of rent being Rs. 100/- and asserted that it was Rs. 80/- per month. It was further stated that the vacant land was taken on rent for running his industry and he raised construction thereon 35 years back and since then he has been running the factory on the property.

Learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition holding that by raising construction, the value of the plot has been increased and that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent has raised two rooms and shed in the plot without the consent of the landlord. The landlord''s appeal was dismissed finding that the tenancy came into existence in the year 1951. The construction, existing thereon is not a new construction rather it is in existence since long and therefore, the application is filed with mala fide intention to seek eviction.

Aggrieved against the judgment of the authorities under the Act, landlord has filed the present revision petition. I have gone through the record of the case. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties, I find no material irregularity or illegality with the finding recorded by the Courts below.

The landlord in ejectment petition itself has asserted that the property-in-dispute is taur (vacant land) at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month in the year 1951. However, the landlord has not stated that when the respondent has raised construction over the property-in-dispute? The tenant asserted that the rent was Rs. 80/- per month as taur was taken on rent by the respondent for running his industry and he raised construction thereon and since then he has been running his factory in the property-in-dispute. AW-1 Kartar Singh has admitted that the shed and rooms were constructed 25 years ago and that such shed and rooms were constructed soon after the land was given on rent. The construction on the rented land was raised soon after the tenancy was created and it is atleast more than 25 years prior to the statement of witness. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Gopal Lal Rawar 1986 (2) RCR 410 that the landlord is estopped to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of material impairment of the value and utility once he has been accepting rent in spite of such material impairment. The construction in the instant case were raised in the year 1951. The landlord continued to receive rent for number of years and has filed the present petition only in the year 1986.

Keeping in view the statutory provisions as interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that the landlord has acquiesced in the construction raised by the tenant and raised no objection for sufficient long period and continued to receive rent. In fact, both the Courts below have dismissed the case holding that the construction was not new construction rather it was in existence since long.

I, therefore, do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the finding recorded by the Courts below. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.