Punjab-Haryana High Court
Braham Sarup vs Kirori Mal Ram Chander on 13 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR79
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. Both the revision petition, i.e. C.R. No. 2266 of 1988 and C. R. No. 3450 of 1989, have been preferred by the landlord whose ejectment petitions were dismiss- ed by the Authorities below for the ejectment of tenants from two- different shops.
2. The ejectment of the tenants from 'the aforesaid two shops- was claimed by the landlord (petition herein) on the ground that the tenants have materially impaired the value and utility of the shops in their occupation. It was alleged by the landlord that there was a 2 ft. wide and 8 ft. long chabutra in front of the shops and the tenants after taking the land measuring 6' x 7' from the Municipal Committee on teh bazari, have raised a pacca platform (Chabutra) in front of the shops and have enclosed these platforms and chabutra from both sides and roofed it and put a rolling shutters in front of the enclosure without the permission of the landlord.
3. The allegations made in the ejectment petitions were controveiled by the tenants, who submitted that the alleged alterations are in existence for the last many years, and these alterations were in the knowledge of the landlord who never objected to the same. It was also stated that nine other similar shops in the row in which the shops in dispute are situated, have tin-sheds like the shops in dispute.
4. The authorities below after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, dismissed the ejectment petitions of the landlord. It was found as a matter of fact by the authorities below that the landlord 'has not been able to establish that the alleged constructions are permanent in nature; rather it was found that the said alterations are purely temporary structures which could be removed at any time with nominal costs.
5 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I find no merit in the revision petitions.
6. Before the rolling shutters were put in, there had been a roofed chhappar in front of the shop in the open space which the tenants had taken on Teh Bazari from the Municipal Committee. After taking the open space on Teh Bazari, the tenants put wooden almirahs on both sides and roofed them with tin-shed and put rolling shutters in front thereof. Both the authorities below have found that no Kari or Balli has been inserted in front portion of the demised shops. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that such like temporary structures have not brought about any substantial change in the front and the structure of the building to give any cause of action to the landlord for seeking eviction of his tenants.
7. Consequently, the revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.