Piara Lal and others vs Tirath Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlords'' petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

The landlords Piara Lal, Yashpal and Parshotam Lal sought the ejectment of their tenant Tirath Singh, inter-alia. on the ground that the tenant has made material alterations in the premises in dispute by which it has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that when the premises were let out, there were two Katcha shops whereas at present it is almost a new building and therefore the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the repairs carried out by the tenant though extensive do not come within the mischief of section 13(2)(iii) of the E.P. Urban Rent Restriction Act, and therefore the tenant could not be held liable for ejectment. Dissatisfied with the same the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

Today, two affidavits, one of Shri Piara Lal landlord and the other of Shri Yashpal, landlord have been filed in this Court. Both of them are also present in person. It has been stated therein that both of them have sold their share 1/3rd each to the tenant Tirath Singh and even the possession has also been handed over to him as owner since 22nd August, 1985.

In view of this development the tenant Tirath Singh has now become owner of 2/3rd share in the demised premises, and therefore, no ejectment order could be passed against him. At the most Purshotam Lal landlord No. 3 may be entitled to seek partition if any, of his 1/3rd share. Admittedly, the premises were let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. Purshotam Lal landlord who is the owner of 1/3rd share may be entitled to 1/3rd of the said rent, as long as Tirath Singh is in occupation of the whole premises.

In view of this development, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.