Sadhu Ram vs Niranjan Dass and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom the order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below.

The landlords-respondents sought the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the premises, in dispute, alleging the same to be a house, i.e., a residential building. It was averred in the ejectment application that the demised premises were rented out to the petitioner vide rent-note dated August 18, 1969, Exhibit A-1, on the condition that he will not make any construction thereon without the consent of the landlords. Since he had constructed a room without the consent of the landlords in front of the house and had also made other additions and alterations in the property, in dispute, without the written consent of the landlords, it was alleged that the said acts on his part had materially altered the character of the accommodation and had, thus, impaired its ultility. The averments to this effect were made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the ejectment application. Those paragraphs read :--

That the respondent in contravention of the agreement in the lease deed has constructed a room with out the permission of the petitioners, in front of the house, the site which was meant for passage shown as yellow in the plan attached and as such he has made the construction in contravention of express stipulation in the lease deed. As such he has breached the contract and as such he is liable to be ejected.

That the respondent has also made additions and alterations in the property, in dispute, without the written consent of the petitioners.

That the respondent has closed the sehan adjacent to the chhappra and removed the staircase from there and converted that sehan into a room and as such he changed the structure and changed the face and front of the house to make it appear as different from the original and thus materially altered the character and position of the accommodation.

The replies to these paragraphs in the written statement are :--

That paragraph No. 3 is wrong and denied. The respondent has not made any new construction after the rent note dated 18.8.1969. The construction which is now existing on the site, in dispute, is the tame as it stood at the time of execution of the rent note. However, the respondent has repaired the old construction. The respondent has not made any construction on the land which was meant for passage nor any place allegedly shown in yellow colour left for any passage. It was already under construction.

That paragraph 4 is wrong and denied. The respondent has not made any addition or alteration in the old construction.

That contents of paragraph No. 5 of the petition are wrong and denied. There was no pucca staircase on the premises. Wooden staircase was in use and the same is there. The respondent has not converted any sehan into any room. The respondent has not changed the structure nor the face or front of the house, nor has changed the original position or materially altered the character and position of the accommodation.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :--

Whether the respondent has made alterations and additions in the disputed premises without the permission of the applicants as alleged in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the application? If so, to what effect ?

Whether the respondents have removed the handpick from the disputed premises as alleged in paragraph 6 of the application ? If so, to what effect ?

Whether the respondent is a statutory tenant as alleged in paragraph 11 of the application ? If so, to what effect ?

Relief.

Under issue No. 1, the Rent Controller found that in view of the terms in the rent-note, it was clear that the written permission of the landlords was required for making additions and alterations in the premises, in dispute, and since no such permission was taken, the issue was decided in favour of the landlords. On this material issue, the finding being in favour of the landlords, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed this finding of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the order of ejectment passed in favour of the landlords. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that according to the finding of the Appellate Authority, the tenant had converted the chhappra into a regular room which amounted to re-construction but, even then, on the basis of that finding, it could not be held that it materially impaired the valve or utility of the building. According to the learned counsel, the approach of the authorities below was wrong and they were obsessed with the view that since the construction had been raised without the written consent of the landlords as stipulated in the rent-note, the tenant was liable to be ejected from the premises. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner was illegal and against the statute. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlords contended that it was clearly stipulated in the rent-note that no further construction would be raised by the tenant without the written permission of the landlords and since the tenant had violated the said term, he was liable to be ejected from the premises, in question.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the authorities below was wrong and illegal.

5 Even if we assume that there was a stipulation in the rent-note that the tenant will not raise any construction without the written permission of the landlords, no order of ejectment could be passed against him on that ground since there is no such provision in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act). According to the averments made in the ejectment application, as reproduced above, the tenant had materially altered the character and position of the accommodation and it was on that basis that it was contended that it had diminished its value and utility, but no such finding has been given by the authorities below. According to the findings of the Appellate Authority, the tenant had converted the chhappra into a regular room as it no longer exists in the photographs, or in the plan, Exhibit A-7, but all the same, it amounted to re-construction which has materially impaired the value and utility of the building from the point of view of the landlords. It is the common case of the parties that at the time of the execution of the rent-note, Exhibit A-1, the tenant had raised certain construction on the vacant site and what actually rented out to the tenant was a vacant site on which the construction raised by the tenant earlier was allowed to stay with the stipulation that no further construction would be raised without the written permission of the landlords, and the tenant will remove the said construction while vacating the site. In order to succeed, it was obligatory on the part of the landlords to prove that the alleged construction if any, had materially impaired the value or utility of the rented land. There is no specific allegation to that effect in the ejectment application, nor there is any cogent evidence to that effect. Even the authorities below have not given any specific finding as to in what manner the alleged re-construction has impaired the value and utility of the rented premises. As observed earlier, it appears that the authorities below were obsessed with the idea that since there was a stipulation in the rent-note that no further construction would be raised by the tenant without the written permission of the landlords, the order of ejectment was passed against him. This approach of the authorities below is not warranted by the provisions of the Act. Even if the tenant had violated the terms of the rent-note, his ejectment could only be ordered under the provisions of the Act and not otherwise Not only that, any construction raised by tenant would not entitle a landlord to claim his ejectment unless it is further proved that such a construction has materially imparied the value or utility of the premises, in dispute. This the landlords have failed to prove in the present case.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of eviction passed against the tenant by the authorities below is set aside and the eviction application filed by the landlords against him is dismissed with no order as to costs.