Shivala Damodar Dass Situated Cinema Road, Phagwara vs Shri Gulzara Ram and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition challenging the impugned orders of the Authorities below whereby its application for ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises was dismissed.

The brief facts emerging out from the impugned orders are that in the ejectment petition, the petitioner averred that respondent No.1 is a tenant over the rented land at the rate of Rs.8/-per month who used the rented land by placing a wooden Khokha over it and the respondent was liable to be ejected from the rented land on the following grounds:

(i) That after the expiry of the fixed period of tenancy respondent No.1 became a statutory tenant.

(ii) That respondent No.1 has not made the payment of rent to the petitioner-landlord as agreed and therefore, now the rent from 1st March, 1981 is due from respondent No.1.

(iii) Thatrespondent No.1 has totally ceased to occupy the rented land as he has already left for a foreign country and has sublet the demised premises while he was statutory tenant to respondent No.2, without the written consent of landlord.

Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed written statement pleading that Shivala Damodar Dass has never been managed by the petitioner-Society which is neither registered under the Societies Registration Act, nor has anything to do with the said Mandir i.e. Shivala Damodar Dass. It was further averred that the arrears of rent with interest and costs had been tendered on the first date of hearing which were accepted by the petitioner-landlord under protest. It was further pleaded that no alterations had been effected by the respondents which had affected the value and utility of the rented property in any manner.

The petitioner filed replication denying the averments contained in the written reply and reiterating the contents of the ejectment application. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller, Phagwara framed the following issues:

Whether the applicant Managing Committee is duly registered and was authorised to file petition through Sh. Bachan Singh deceased, President? OPA.

Whether Sh. Dharam Pal Dhiman is duly elected president and is entitled to continue with the proceedings? OPA

Whether the respondent No.1, has ceased to occupy the rented land and has sublet the same to respondent No.2, without the written consent of the landlord? OPA

Whether the tender made by the respondent is valid? OPR

Relief.

Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Under issue No.1, it was held that the petitioner has failed to prove that it is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act and thus, question to file the present ejectment petition or to continue the same through its alleged President does not arise. However, since the respondent No.1 admitted the petitioner-Managing Committee to be his landlord in a previous civil suit filed by him but the said relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had come to an end in view of the judgment Ex.R-1 wherein it was held that Sh. Haridwar Giri Chela was in possession of the management and control of the Mandir Shivala and the land attached to the said Mandir including the premises in dispute and the petitioner-Society was restrained permanently to interfere with his possession and realising the rent from the respondent. Issue No.2 was held in favour of the respondent. However, under issue No.3, it was held that the respondent had raised unauthorized construction over the premises in dispute and thus, materially impaired the value and utility of the land in dispute. In view of the aforesaid findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. However, in appeal findings on issue No.1 were returned in favour of the petitioner holding that since relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, the tenancy has not come to an end. Findings on issue No.2 were also reversed in favour of the petitioner. However, under issue No.3, while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority found that there was absolutely no evidence on record to hold that the respondent had impaired the value and utility of the rented land in any manner and thus, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Still aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner-landlord is before this Court challenging the findings of the Appellate Authority on issue No.3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting arguments was at a total loss to point out any material evidence on record on the basis of which it can be held that the respondents had effected material alterations over the rented land by raising pucca construction and has replaced the Khokha without the written consent of the landlord.

Thus, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.