Delhi District Court
The Printers House Private Limited vs Mr.Tarunchander Malik on 5 July, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.P.GARG; DISTRICT JUDGE-IV,
NEW DELHI
Unique I.D. No.02403C0742562005
RCTA No.09/08/05
The Printers House Private Limited,
A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
Having its registered Office at 10, Scindia Housel,
Atma Ram House,
New Delhi-11---1 Appellant
Versus
Mr.TarunChander Malik,
s/o Late Shri Tara Chand Malik,
r/o 68/2, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001
.... Respondent.
Date of institution of appeal : 25.04.2005
Date when case reserved for orders : 03.05.2010
Date of announcement of judgment : 05.07.2010
(MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD APPEAL)
The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 1/26
Vs
Mr Tarun Chander Malik
2
ORDER
Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Printers House Private Limited u/s 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the judgment dated 16.3.2005 passed by Sh.Rakesh Kumar Sharma the then learned Additional Rent Controller, in Eviction Petition No.649/2000 whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent u/s 14(1) (d) & (j) of Delhi Control Act, 1958 was allowed.
2 Appeal was admitted for hearing. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondent. Trial court record was summoned. 3 I have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
4 On perusal of the file, it reveals that eviction petition No.649/2000 was filed by the respondent before the learned trial court u/s 14(1) (d) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of two garages bearing No.68/3 and 68/4 situated on the ground floor forming part of the premises bearing 68, Janpath, New Delhi, shown in red in the site plan attached. Case of the respondent/landlord is that the premises in question were let out to the appellant by Tara Chand Malik for residential purposes i.e. for parking of personal cars. Tara Chand The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 2/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 3 Malik has since expired and respondent Tarun Chander Malik is the son of deceased Tara Chand Malik.
5 Case of the respondent before the learned trial court was the premises in question were being used by the appellant as ''godown'' for storing old records for the last couple of years . The premises in question were lying locked and unoccupied for a period of more than six months immediately preceding the date of institution of the eviction petition.
6 Further case of the respondent before the learned trial court was that the appellant through its officials/staff carried out extensive masonary works in the suit premises. The existing masonary shelves in the suit premises were blocked/filled with the help of bricks and cement mortar. The intervening wall between the two garages had been cut/demolished so as to provide an interconnecting door between the two garages. This wall was/is a load bearing wall and the cutting thereof for purposes of providing an inter connecting door had weakened its stability, causing huge damage to the premises in suit. It was further pleaded that the appellant had removed the wooden doors of the premises and cut into the walls thereof to install rolling shutters. The The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 3/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 4 appellant also relaid the floor of the premises and built masonary pillars inside the premises whereupon pre-fabricated RCC shelves were laid out. All this construction raised by the appellant had changed the identity of the premises in suit from ''garages'' into a godown cum attic. There was not enough space in the ''garages'' to conveniently park a reasonably sized car. All these changes were caused by the appellant without obtaining the consent of respondent. The appellant has caused substantial damages to the suit premises.
7 The eviction petition was contested by the appellant. The appellant denied the allegations of the respondent and claimed that the premises in question were let out for storing old records of the appellant. The premises in question were ''garages/stores'' and were never used for ''residential purpose''. The premises in question were let out for ''commercial purposes''. No additions or alterations or structural construction were carried out in the premises in question. The appellant pleaded that it carried out the work of termite proofing and damp proofing within the premises and repaired some shelves which were only an improvement. No damage whatsoever was caused in the premises in question.
The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 4/26
Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 5 8 In the replication, the respondent reiterated his version in the petition.
9 The respondent examined himself as PW 1 before the learned trial court. The present appellant examined one C.L. Sehgal in its evidence. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and an appraisal of evidence adduced on record by both the parties,the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 16.3.2005 allowed the eviction petition on both counts u/s 14(1) (d) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant preferred the present appeal in question. During the pendency of the appeal the learned predecessor vide order dated 7.12.2006 observed that it would be appropriate to record statement of a person who was aware about the purpose of letting. Accordingly the present appellant examined one Man Mohan Kohli as RW2. The respondent in rebuttal examined PW 2 Sh.Ram Nath Malik.
10 Vide order dated 21.9.2007 the learned predecessor directed the learned trial court to decide the issue of letting purpose based upon the additional evidence recorded before the tribunal. 11 Vide order dated 20.12.2007 Sh.Deepak Garg the then The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 5/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 6 learned Rent Controller returned the findings regarding purpose of letting and sent back the file to the Tribunal holding that the letting purpose was ''residential'' only and not ''commercial''. 12 The appellant filed objections to the findings recorded by Sh.Deepak Garg the then learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.12.2007.
13 Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court can't be sustained as there was no evidence before the Ld. Trial Court to conclude that the premises in question were let out for ''residential'' purpose only. The premises in question were never used for ''residential'' purpose. It was let out as''garages/stores'' and from the very inception, the appellant was using the same for storing the old record. No additions or alterations were carried out by the appellant in the premises in question to cause substantial damage in the property in question. The appellant had only carried out ''repairs'' in the premises in question for termite proofing/damp proofing. Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the following authorities reported in:
1 Sarla Mittal Vs K C Jain, 21 (1982) DLT, 334 The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 6/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 7 2 Sh H T Primlani Vs Smt. Shanta Malhotra, 55 (1994) DLT 570 3 Suraj Prakash Chopra Raj Kumar Vs Baij Nath Dhawan & Anr, 2003 (69) DRJ 431;
4 A.N.Kapoor Vs. Pushpa Talwar, AIR 1992 SC 80; 5 Shiv Datt Jadiya Vs Ganga Devi, (2002) 3, SCC 189; 6 (2003) (1) SCC 59; and 7 1978 (1) RCT 406.
14 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the Ld. Trial Court. All the relevant contentions of the appellant have been discussed by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment. The premises in question were let out to the appellant for parking personal cars of the Director of the appellant only. The appellant used to park its cars in the garages in question. The appellant has carried out structural changes in the premises in question and the same can't be used for the purpose for which it was meant, i.e. for ''garages'' purpose. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the authorities;
The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 7/26
Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 8 1 Keshav Metal Works & Anr Vs Jitender Kumar Verma,53 (1994) DLT 685 2 Suraj Parakash Chopra Raj Kumar Vs BaijNath Dhawan & Anr, 2003 (69) DRJ 431 3 Sarla Mittal Vs K C Jain, 21 (1982) DLT 334 4 International Radio Vs Sheela Wanti,1980 (1) RCR 691 5 Satish Swarup Gupta Vs M/s Vraj Lal mani Lal & Co.1981 (1) RCR 310; and 6 Kuldeep Raj Kapoor Vs Yashpal Mahindroo,1996(2) RCJ 09 15 I have considered the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments filed on record. 16 The case is being discussed as under:-
(A) EVICTION U/S 14(1)(d) OF DRC ACT 17 On perusal of the evidence adduced on record by the
respondent before the Ld. Trial Court, I am of the view that respondent has failed to prove that premises in question were let out only for ''residential'' purpose. U/s 14(1)(d) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the respondent was required to prove that the premises in question were let out only for ''residential'' purpose and that the same were not being so The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 8/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 9 used for a period of six months prior to the institution of the eviction proceedings. In the present case, there is no document on record produced by the respondent/landlord to prove that the premises in question were let out only for ''residential'' purpose. Admittedly, premises in question were let out to the appellant in the year 1958. No lease agreement/rent agreement is shown to have been executed between the parties containing terms and conditions for which the premises in question were let out. Earlier the respondent examined himself as PW1 and in his deposition merely stated that the premises in dispute were let out for residential purpose. Garages were let out only for parking personal cars of the Director of the appellant. In the cross-examination, the respondent admitted that the premises in dispute were not let out in his presence. Thus the same had been let out before he came to his senses. The testimony of this witness was not at all sufficient to infer the ''letting purpose'' of the premises in question. 18 During appeal, as per the directions of the Ld. Predecessor, the respondent further examined PW2 Ram Nath Malik in rebuttal. In his deposition PW2 Ram Nath Malik stated that premises in dispute were let out by his great paternal uncle (Tauji( Sh Tara Chand Malik in The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 9/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 10 the year 1958 in his presence for parking of cars exclusively. Till 1980 the appellant used the premises in dispute for parking of cars. He also testified that original letter Ex. RW1/P-1 ( also exhibited as RW1/D1) was scribed on behalf of appellant by Sh J N Sahni and was handed over to him and he found that the same suffered from an error. He corrected the said error with his pen at point 'A'. Sh J N Sahani affixed his signatures thereon in his presence on Ex. RW1/P-2. 19 In the cross examination, PW2 Ram Nath Malik admitted that he was present in Delhi from March, 1998 to July 30, 2003 and was aware of the case from the very beginning. He was looking after the case in the beginning, but after the death of Tara Chand Malik, his sons started looking after the business in 1968. The witness denied the suggestion that premises in dispute were let out only for ''commercial'' purpose. The respondent has failed to explain as to why this witness was not examined at the first instance before the Ld. Trial Court when this witness was aware of the letting purposes of the premises in question. Being father of the respondent, testimony of this witness regarding letting purpose is required to be scrutinized with great care. 20 Letter Ex. RW1/P-1 ( also exhibited as RW1/D1) is relied The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 10/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 11 upon by both the parties. In this document, there is mention that premises in question were ''garages''. There is no mention that the premises in question were ''stores/godowns''. Thus, it can safely be inferred from this document that premises in questions were ''garages No 9910 (68/3 and 68/4)'' at 68 Queensway, New Delhi which were let out by the predecessor of the respondent to the appellant. No letting purpose specifically finds mention in the document. There is no mention that the ''garages'' in question were to be used by the appellant only for parking of personal cars of its Directors. Also there is not mention that these ''garages'' in question were to be used by the appellant for storing old record as godowns or stores. There is no other evidence on record to infer that the premises in question were meant only for parking personal cars of the Directors of the appellant. In this very document, there is mention that a regular rent deed would be got executed and registered with the Sub Registrar of Documents. It was further agreed that the agreement would be mostly on the basis of the agreement of the respondent with British India General Insurance Co. Ltd; the tenant of respondent on the first floor of 68 Queensway, New Delhi Nothing has been explained by the respondent if any regular rent deed was executed The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 11/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 12 with the appellant regarding the premises in question. The respondent also failed to explain if any agreement was executed with British India General Insurance Co. Ltd, and if so what were its terms and conditions. In his deposition before the Ld. Trial Court respondent did not deny if no such agreement regarding the premises in question on the first floor of the building in question was executed with the British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. That document was very material to infer the letting purpose as the agreement with the appellant was to be on the same terms and conditions. That agreement of the respondent with the British India General Insurance Co. Ltd was material piece of evidence to infer the terms and conditions of similar agreement between the parties regarding the premises in question. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the respondent for with-holding that material document. 21 In the eviction petition, the respondent categorically stated that the premises in question were being earlier used for parking of the cars. However, for the last couple of years, the premises in question were being used by the appellant as ''godown'' for storing old records. It was not at all clarified as to since when the appellant had started using the premises in question as ''godown'' for storing of old records. In the The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 12/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 13 evidence as PW1 respondent Tarun Chander Malik did not testify as to since when the appellant had started using the ''garages'' in question for storing of old records. He merely stated that the premises in dispute were lying locked for 1 ½ years and the appellant company was using the ''garages'' probably for storing old records. In the cross examination, respondent denied the suggestion that appellant was using the premises in question for keeping its record from the very beginning. He, however, admitted that at present appellant was keeping its records in the premises in question.
22 PW2 Sh Ram Nath Malik in his deposition stated that the premises in question were used for parking of cars till 1980. It was only in mid 1980 that parking of cars was discontinued. In the cross- examination, PW2 denied the suggestion that garages in question were never taken for parking vehicles or were taken for keeping records only. 23 On perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses of the respondent, it reveals that since 1980, the premises in question are being used for keeping old records by the appellant. The respondent failed to explain inordinate delay in filing the petition for eviction in 1998 after he came to know as back as in 1980 that the premises in question were The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 13/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 14 being used by the appellant for keeping old records. ''Garages'' are primarily meant for parking vehicles. However, there is nothing on record to show that the ''garages'' in question were let out to the appellant only for parking of vehicles. There is nothing on record to show as to what would be the consequences if the appellant did not use the premises in question for parking of vehicles. There is nothing on record to show if the premises in question could not be used for storing old record of the company of the appellant. If the person having vehicle at any stage happened to be not in possession of the vehicle and used the ''garage'' for storing other articles, can it be said that there is change of user of the premises from ''residential'' to ''commercial''? In the present case there is nothing on record to show if the ''garages'' are being used for commercial purpose/trade purpose. No article is being purchased or sold in the ''garages'' in question. So it can't be said that the premises in question are being used for commercial purpose in its strict sense. By no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that the premises in question were meant for ''residential purpose'' only. Admittedly, ''garages'' in question were never used for residence by the appellant. Parking of vehicles in the premises in question can't be said that it were The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 14/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 15 meant for ''residential purpose'' in its real sense. ''Garages'' in fact are not meant to be used for ''residential purposes''. There is no kitchen in the ''garages'' in question. There is no bathroom and toilet facility therein. In fact ''garages'' in question can't be used for residence purpose. There is nothing on record to show if the drivers of the appellant used to stay and occupy the ''garages'' in question for residential purpose. No residential activity was ever carried out in the premises in question. Parking of vehicles itself can't be termed its user as ''residential''. Cars are not living objects to convert its user as ''residential''. User of the ''garages'' for cars or for keeping old records or of storing any sundry articles can't be said to change its user from ''residential'' to ''commercial''. There was no specific restriction on the appellant to use the ''garages'' only for parking of vehicles. It was for the appellant to use the ''garages'' either for parking vehicles or keeping his old record or other sundry waste articles.
24 Admittedly, ''garages'' in question were let out by the predecessor of the respondent to the appellant when the appellant was carrying on its business for ''commercial'' purpose at some other nearby place.
The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 15/26
Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 16 25 The letting purpose of the ''garages'' is to be connected with the letting purpose of the main premises in which the appellant was carrying on its business. Since the appellant was carrying on its business for ''commercial'' purpose in the main building, ''garages in question can't be termed to have been taken by the appellant only for ''residential'' purpose. The ''garages'' in question were not part and and parcel of the main premises in which the appellant was carrying on its business from the very inception. The respondent failed to prove that main premises to which ''garages'' in question were attached in the building in question were being used at the time of letting only for ''residential'' purpose. If the main premises to which the ''garages'' in question were attached were being used for ''commercial'' purpose, the ''garages'' in question can't be inferred to have been let out only for ''residential'' purpose. 26 At no time, prior to filing of the present eviction petition, the respondent objected to the user of the premises in question for keeping old record by the appellant. Only when some additions or alterations were carried out in the premises in question, the respondent came up with the plea that premises in dispute were not being used for ''residential'' purpose by the appellant for a period of more than six The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 16/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 17 months prior to filing of the eviction petition. 27 Respondent did not examine any witness from the neighborhood to ascertain the letting purpose at the time it was given on rent to the appellant. No official record was produced to ascertain the letting purpose of the ''garages'' in question to be ''residential''. Burden was heavily upon the respondent to prove the letting purpose as ''residential'', which he has failed to prove.
28 Moreover, u/s 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the respondent is required to prove that premises were not being used for ''residential'' purpose for more than six months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. Again, there is no such evidence on record. Admittedly, premises in question were being used for storing old records by the appellant since 1980 without any objection from the respondent. There is nothing on record to show if at any time ''garages'' in question were exclusively used by the appellant only for parking of the vehicles. 29 In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that the respondent has failed to prove that the premises in question were let out only for ''residential'' purpose. The evidence of the landlord/respondent before the Ld. Trial Court on this aspect is highly scanty. The findings of The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 17/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 18 the Ld. Trial Court u/s 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act can't be sustained. The eviction order passed by the Ld. Trial Court u/s 14(1)(d) of Delhi Rent Control Act is thus set aside.
(B) EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(j) OF DRC ACT 30 Under Section 14(1)(j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, case of
the respondent is that appellant has carried out additions and alterations in the premises in question without the consent of the respondent and has caused substantial damage to the property in question. The appellant has denied the allegations of the respondent and has pleaded that only ''repairs'' were carried out in the premises in dispute to protect the premises in dispute from termites etc. 31 On scanning the testimonies of the witnesses examined by both the parties, it stands established that additions and alterations were carried out by the appellant in the premises in dispute. The appellant has only termed the additions and alterations carried out by him in the premises in question as ''repairs''. The burden was heavily upon the appellant to prove that these additions or alterations carried out in the premises in question were only ''repairs'' and he did not cause substantial damage to the property in dispute due to that. The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 18/26
Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 19 32 In the present case, there is bald statement of Sh C L Sehgal, Assistant Manager (Accounts) of the appellant company appearing as RW1 before the Ld. Triala Court on this aspect. In the cross- examination, RW1 admitted that he saw the premises in suit for the first time in the year 1987. Terms of tenancy were not settled in his presence. So, this witness was not aware about the condition of the premises in question prior to 1987. The witness has failed to prove that only ''repairs'' were carried out in the premises in question. In the cross examination, this witness admitted that no resolution was passed by the Directors of the appellant company authorizing carrying out of ''repairs'' in the premises in suit. No letter or other communication including legal notice was sent to landlord that the premises needed ''repairs'' or that if the landlord failed to carry out the same, the appellant would do it himself. In cross-examination, RW1 further admitted that all the old shelves were demolished and new RCC shelves were provided. He voluntarily added that old shelves were also of RCC. He further admitted that new shelves built in 1998 were supported on new bricks laid in cement mortar. He also admitted that old doors removed from the premises in dispute were not returned to the landlord. He did not know The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 19/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 20 what was the fate of the old doors. The witness failed to specify as to how many bags of cement and bricks were used in carrying out the so called ''repairs''. He could not give the dates during which work continued in the premises in suit. He admitted that work in the premises in question was got done through a Civil Contractor. He could not give his name nor he could say as to how much money was paid to the contractor. He admitted that all the three walls of both the garages except one interconnecting the door were new full of shelves made of RCC supported by brick wall. The witness voluntarily stated that it was same since he joined the company. However, he could not say if there was any sketch plan, plan or other documents including photographs to show all these constructions on all the three walls even in 1987-88. The witness stated that he could not say what was the width of the garage after excluding the area occupied by the shelves. He further admitted that now-a-days a maruti esteem car could not be parked inside the premises in suit. He further admitted that now-a-days there were shutters in front of the premises in question. No permission either from the respondent or from the municipality or from the court of the Ld. Rent Controller or from any competent court was taken before carrying out The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 20/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 21 ''repairs''. He could not say nor he could confirm or deny the suggestion if the appellant had spent Rs. 5,00,000/- in carrying out ''repairs'' in the premises in question. The witness expressed his ignorance as to how many shelves existed in the premises in question prior to 1987. He did not know their numbers that day. He could not confirm or deny the suggestion that number of shelves during the last 6 years increased. Witness did not reveal as to what quantum of money was spent by the appellant in carrying out the ''repairs'' during the relevant period, i.e. February, 1998.
33 Sh Manmohan Kohli appeared as RW2 in appeal and in cross-examination, he identified the photographs Ex. PW1/32, Ex. PW1/33, Ex. PW1/37, Ex. PW1/38, Ex. PW1/39, Ex. PW1/42, Ex. PW1/44, Ex. PW1/46, Ex. PW1/53, Ex. PW1/54, Ex. PW1/59 and Ex. PW1/61 as photographs of the premises in question. In the cross examination, he failed to tell as to how much money was spent upon the ''repairs'' shown in the suit premises. He admitted that doors shown in Ex. PW1/32 were not there. Doors were removed when shutter was replaced as shown in Ex. PW1/61.
34 Evidence adduced on record by the parties including The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 21/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 22 photographs proved on record, amply demonstrate that huge additions and alterations were carried out by the appellant in the premises in dispute. It also stands established that all these additions and alterations were carried out by the appellant without seeking consent in writing of the respondent/landlord. The respondent was not taken into confidence by the appellant before carrying out so called ''repairs'' in the premises in dispute.
35 There is nothing on record to show if the appellant had ever informed the respondent/landlord in writing that premises in question required ''repairs''. Burden was heavily on the appellant to prove that so called ''additions'' and ''alterations'' were in fact ''repairs'' to maintain the structure in its present form. The appellant with-held material documents to show that additions and alterations carried out by him in the premises in suit were only meant as ''repairs''. No books of accounts were produced by the appellant to show as to how much money was spent in carrying out these additions and alterations. Civil Contractor who was engaged to carry out the changes was not examined by the appellant. The appellant also did not examine any person from the locality or any expert to show that premises in question required any The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 22/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 23 ''repairs'' to keep it intact in its present form/shape. 36 It is well settled that substantial damage to the property in question is to be ascertained from the point of view of the landlord. The impairment of value and utility of the building is to be seen from the point of view of the landlord and not the tenant. (2003 (2) RCR (Rent)
83. 37 As observed above, premises in question were meant to be used as ''garages''. Primarily the ''garages'' are to be used for parking of vehicles. The court in its earlier discussion observed that if one was not in possession of vehicle, at some point of time, user of the ''garage'' for other purpose like ''storing of old record'' or ''sundry items'' can't change its user. However, by making ''additions'' and ''alterations'' in the premises in question, the very purpose/nature of the premises can't be changed to give it a new look to be used for some other purpose. Appellant has admitted that at present due to ''additions'' and ''alterations'', ''garages'' in question can't be used for parking vehicles and even one maruti esteem car can't be accommodated in the ''garages'' in question. It shows that very purpose for which ''garages'' were constructed has lost its purpose due to the changes effected by the The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 23/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 24 appellant without consent of the landlord/respondent in writing. The appellant has altered the nature and character of the suit premises which amounts to causing of ''substantial damage'' to the property in question. Constructions carried out by the appellant in the premises in question are substantial in nature and have altered the form, front and structure of the accommodation rented out to him.
38 In the case of ''Kishan Dev Vs Jhabu Ram 1969, PLR 39", the Hon'ble court observed that the impairment and utility of the building has to be examined from the point of view of the owner and not from the point of view of the tenant. Where a building becomes totally different from that which was rented out to the tenant and this state of affairs comes out by the act of the tenant, it would amount to an act of waste.
39 The appellant has replaced the old doors of ''garages; in question with rolling shutters. Interconnecting wall between the two ''garages'' has been demolished and the appellant has provided interconnecting door between the two ''garages''. The appellant has also relaid the floor of the tenanted premises and have built masonary pillars inside the premises whereupon pre-fabricated RCC shelves have been The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 24/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 25 laid out. All this has changed the identity of the premises in question which can't be used for ''garage'' purpose.
40 The contentions raised by the appellant on this aspect have already been considered in detail by the Ld. Trial Court. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the Ld. Trial Court on this aspect. No interference by the appellant court is required in the said findings. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order u/s 14 (1) (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
(C) RESULT 41 In view of my findings above, appeal filed by the appellant
against impugned order dated 16.3.2005 of the Ld. Trial Court is partly allowed. The appeal of the appellant against order of eviction u/s 14 (1)
(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is accepted and the order of the Ld. Trial Court on that ground of eviction is set aside. 42 The appeal filed by the appellant against the order u/s 14(1)
(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is dismissed.
43 The Ld. Trial Court shall proceed with the proceedings u/s 14(10) of the Delhi Rent Control Act as per law. Parties shall bear their The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 25/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik 26 own costs.
44 Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith copy of the order.
45 Appeal file be consigned to RR.
Announced in open court on .05.07.2010 (S.P.GARG) DISTRICT JUDGE-IV, NEW DELHI The Printers House Pvt Ltd Page No. 26/26 Vs Mr Tarun Chander Malik