Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Chand vs Gurbax Singh Duggal on 23 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)133PLR531
Author: J.S. Khehar
Bench: J.S. Khehar
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J.
1. Respondent-landlord Gurbax Singh Duggal filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking the eviction of petitioner-tenant Ram Chand, inter alia on account of non payment of rent and on account of making additions and alterations which had resulted in material impairment in value and utility of the premises.
2. In so far as the question of non-payment of rent is concerned, issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were framed by the Rent Controller and decided against respondent-landlord Gurbax Singh Duggal. The conclusion drawn on the issues of non-payment of rent has become final since the same was never challenged.
3. In so far as the issue of making material alterations in the premises in question which resulted in the alleged impairment in value and utility of the premises is concerned, the claim of the respondent-landlord was that the petitioner-tenant had effected the following alterations:-
(i) The petitioner-tenant covered the space depicted as ABCD in the site plan Ex.A-4 on the Court Road side;
(ii) The petitioner-tenant covered the space EFGH depicted in the site plan Ex.A-4 on Mohinder Ganj Bazar side;
(iii) The petitioner-tenant had opened a door at X-1 depicted in the site plan Ex.A-4 opening into the covered space ABCD.
(iv) The petitioner-tenant had made a wider opening depicted in the site plan Ex.A-4 as X-3 by removing the existing door and dismantling a part of the wall on either side of the door, and installed a shutter in place thereof;
(v) The petitioner-tenant had fixed a door depicted as X-2 in the site plan Ex.A-4 in the covered area ABCD.
4. In so far as the aforesaid additions and alterations are concerned, it was the case of the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Controller that the said additions and alterations had been made prior to the execution of the tenancy in his favour and, therefore, he could not be made liable for the consequences arising out of the alleged alterations. The Rent Controller relying on the statement of the Local Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that the alleged alterations had been effected 5/7 years before the inspection of the premises by the Local Commissioner, whereas the tenancy in favour of the petitioner-tenant was executed about 20/25 years before the filing of the ejectment application. There being no evidence to the contrary, the Rent Controller arrived at the conclusion that the alleged alterations had, in fact, been carried out by the petitioner-tenant. Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, the Rent Controller further held that the alleged alterations amounted to material impairment in value and utility of the premises and accordingly, by an order dated 30.9.1981, allowed two months time to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises.
5. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller on the issue of material impairement the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Patiala. The Appellate Authority, Patiala by its order dated 5th September, 1983, concurred with the conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller. The petitioner-tenant has impugned the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in the present petition.
6. From the narration of facts reproduced above, it is evident that the only issue arising for determination in the present case relates to the alleged alterations affected by the petitioner-tenant and the effect thereof. Before the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, the case of the petitioner-tenant was that the alterations in question had effected before the execution of the tenancy. However, in view of the conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner did not agitate the aforesaid issue, he rather conceded that the alterations in question had been effected by the petitioner-tenant. In view of the stand now adopted by the petitioner-tenant, it is safe to proceed with the matter by accepting that the alleged alterations were effected by the petitioner-tenant after his induction in the premises as a tenant. The only controversy to be adjudicated upon now is, whether the alleged alterations had materially effected the value and utility of the premises in question? The finding of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority on the instant issue is in the affirmative. It is not possible for me to differ with the view concurrently expressed by the Courts below, inter alia, on account of the fact that by the alleged alterations the petitioner-tenant has covered open spaces ABCD [ on the Court Road side] and EFGH [ on the Mohinder Ganj Bazar side]. The said open spaces cannot now be utilised as open spaces as was the case at the time when the tenancy was executed between the parties. It is also not a mater of dispute that an existing door (now covered by the space EFGH) has been removed and walls on both sides thereof dismantled and a wide shutter installed which has been depicted as X-3 in the site plan Ex.A-4. Dismantling of the door and the widening of open space adjoining the door, necessarily must have the effect of additional weight on the remaining part of the wall EH [depicted in the site plan Ex.A-4]. Likewise the opening of the door at X-1, has the same effect. In these circumstances, there can be no doubt that the additions and alterations effected by the petitioner-tenant have materially and adversely effected the value and utility of the premises in question.
7. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.