Ramesh Kumar vs Janender Kumar

G.R. Majithia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority. Who on appeal, reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application of the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises.

The landlord (petitioner) sought eviction of the tenant (respondent) on the ground that he had let out three rooms to the tenant on an annual rent of Rs. 100/- on January 23, 1966. The tenant constructed a godown and a bhatti in the demised premises without the written consent of the landlord and this act resulted in impairing materially the utility and value of the demised premises.

The tenant denied the allegations made in the petition and pleaded that the fourth room was constructed by the father of the landlord pursuant to an agreement arrived at between the parties. A temporary bhatti was constructed for the manufacture of soap for which the demised premises were let out.

The learned Appellate Authority on evidence came to the conclusion that the godown was constructed by the landlord. To arrive at (his finding, he relied upon the original application filed by the landlord to the Municipal Committee, Kaithal for compounding the offence for making the construction without the prior consent of the Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee compounded the matter on payment of Rs. 28/-. The learned Appellate Authority found that the order passed by the Municipal Committee pursuant to the application submitted by the landlord relates to the property in dispute and on the basis of this evidence he concluded that the fourth room, which is a godown, was constructed by the landlord as pleaded by the tenant and the eviction on this ground cannot be sought. With regard to the construction of the bhatti the Appellate Authority found that the demised premises were rented out to the tenant for the manufacture of soap and the construction of the bhatti would not amount to impairing the value and utility of the building more so, when the landlord had permitted the tenant to instal a bhatti in the adjoining property which was taken on rent by him in 1970 vide Rent Note Exhibit A 1.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding of the Appellate Authority. He submitted that the order passed by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Kaithal. Exhibit Rule 6 does not pertain to the property in dispute and the construction of bhatti has resulted in impairing the value and utility of the building. According to the learned counsel. If the landlord had constructed an additional room for the tenant there ought to have been an increase in the rent. Admittedly, the rent was not increased and this is a strong circumstances which negatived the plea of the tenant that the godown was constructed by the landlord. I am unable to accept the submission of the learnad counsel. The Appellate Authority gave opportunity to the landlord to prove that Exhibit Rule 5 the application submitted to the Municipal Committee to compound the construction made without the prior permission to the Municipal Committee and Exhibit Rule 6, the compounding ordered by the Municipal Committee, did not relate to the property in dispute. Despite the opportunity, the landlord could not lead any evidence before the Appellate Authority to prove that, the application Exhibit Rule 5 and the order Exhibit Rule 6 did not relate to the property in dispute. I do not find any infirmity in the appraisal of the evidence made by the learned Appellate Authority. The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is based upon evidence and calls for no interference in revision. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, I leave the parties to hear their own costs.