Shrimati Chander Kiran vs Ram Rattan

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The Petitioner sought ejectment of the Respondent from the first floor of house No. 171, Holi Mohalla, Gohana, by filing an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (for short''the Act''). The premises in dispute were fully described in a plan attached with the application which was later on proved on the record as Ex. A. 1. The premises consist of two rooms and an open terrace. The grounds for eviction pleaded by her, inter-alia were that the Respondent had neither paid nor tendered rent for the period from 13.9 1971 to 13.6.1972 and arrears amounting to Rs 720/- were due from him on this account ; that the Respondent picks up quarrels with her and threatens to kill her which has made it difficult for her and her neighbourers to live ; and that he has removed the shutters of the door and has broken them He has also burnt the electric Sittings The petition was opposed by the Respondent, who inter-alia averred that the rate of rent was Rs 10/- per month only which included Rs 3/- per month as electric charges and on this basis he made the tender of rent on the first date of hearing which was accepted by the Petitioner under protest. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues

(1) Whether the Respondent is liable to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent ?

(2) Whether the Respondent has materially reduced the value or utility of the suit premises ?

(3) Whether the Respondent is a nuisance to the Petitioner and is liable to ejectment on that ground ?

(4) Relief.

The findings on all these issues were returned in favour of the Respondent and against the Petitioner and as a result the ejectment application was dismissed. An appeal filed by the Petitioner before the learned Appellate Authority also failed and was dismissed vide order dated 17 10.1975. This is how she has filed the present revision petition in this Court.

3: I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the pleadings as also the evidence brought on the record before the learned Rent Controller. The Petitioner had not pressed issue No. ( ) before the learned Appellate Authority and as such the finding on this tssue as returned by the Rent Controller was affirned. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not agitate before me the finding recorded by the authority below on issue No. (i) whereby it was held that the tender of rent made by the Respondent on the first date of hearing was valid. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, strenuously argued that a clear case for ejectment of the Respondent under Clause (iv) of Section 13(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, has been made out. He contended that the evidence brings out that the Respondent has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are nuisance to the Petitioner who is the resident of the same building, as also to the residents of the buildings in the neighbourhood. He particularly invited my attention to the statement made by the Respondent in his cross-examination as R. W. 5. He points out that he admitted therein that in proceedings under Sections 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, launched by the Petitioner, he had been bound down for a period of one year ; that he filed a complaint against the Petitioner for having disconnected electricity to the premises in his possession which was dismissed and even an appeal filed by him failed. He further referred to the statement made by the Respondent in cross-examination that because of him other tenants in the building had left and it was two years ago. The learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, submits that the above statement in cross-examination by the Respondent is of no consequence for the reason that the Petitioner has to make out a case for which the foundation has been laid in her pleadings. He contends that it is nowhere pleaded in the application u/s 13 of the Act that any proceeding under Sections 107/151. Criminal Procedure Code, have been taken against the Respondent or that he made any false complaint against the Petitioner for disconnecting electricity to the premises occupied by him, or that the tenants in the building had left because of him.

I have considered the above submissions and I find force in what has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent The ejectment application was filed by the Petitioner as far back as on 21.6.1972. There is no allegation therein for the case what is now sought to be made out on the basis of what the Respondent stated in cross-examination. If any occurrence had taken place subsequent to the filing of the application for ejectment, it was incumbent on the Petitioner to have amended her application and incorporated in clear terms such grounds which made out a case of nuisance within the meaning of Clause (iv) of section 13(2) of the Act for ejectment of the Respondent, but this was not so done. The matter does not end here, Besides her own statement as A. W. 6. the only other witness through whom this ground of ejectment has been sought to be proved is Balbir Singh A. W 4. This witness simply stated that the Respondent threatens the Petitioner very often and throws dust and bad things in front of her door. He has removed the fittings of the house and the doors have been broken The Petitioner herself simply stated that the Respondent uses the roof for preparing cowdungs and refuse and dirt are placed in front of her house by him. He has removed wires of the electric fittings. He has created nuisance and has made her living miserable The Respondent deposed in his examination-in-chief as A. W. 5 that there were 4/5 tenants under the Petitioner from whom she has got the premises vacated. He further mentions that once a quarrel took place between the parties and its cause was that Maksudan Lal A W. who is a frequent visitor to the house of the Petitioner once entered his premises when his wife and daughter were washing their clothes and did not have any cover on their heads. He remonstrated and protested that Maksudan Lal should not enter the house like this without notice. All this simply shows that there might have been a minor incident of a quarrel between the parties If during the pendency of the ejectment application, any proceedings u/s 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, were taken against the Respondent at the instance of the Petitioner full particulars thereof have not been brought on the record. It is not even the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent has forced other tenants to vacate her house She cannot bank upon what is recorded during the course of the statement of the Respondent in cross-examination. The case for nuisance on the part of the Respondent as set out in the application has not at all been proved I, therefore, find no infirmity in the finding on issue No. (3) recorded by the authorities below.

Consequently, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed The parties are, however, left to bear their on costs.