Punjab-Haryana High Court
Goyal Steel Industries And Ors. vs Sangram Singh Sandhawalia And Ors. on 5 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2005)139PLR320
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. This is tenant's revision petition wherein challenge has been made to the judgments dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, and 5.3.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, ordering ejectment on the ground of material impairments made in the demised premises.
2. Indisputably, respondent Sangram Singh Sandhawalia is the landlord of the Industrial Shed bearing No. 701, Industrial Area, Phasc-I, Chandigarh. The premises were let out to the petitioner M/s Goyal Steel Industries, which is a partnership concern constituted by Shri Ram and Subhash Chand petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, on monthly rent of Rs. 55OO/- in the year 1986. The landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the tenant has caused massive structural changes in the demised premises, which resulted in diminishing its value and utility. Notice of the ejectment petition was served on the tenant-firm. The tenant filed written statement wherein, inter alia, was pleaded that there were no structural changes made by the tenants in the demised premises. A plea was taken that the premises were kept in the same condition in which the same were at the time of initiation of the tenancy. If there was any construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, the same was raised by the landlord himself and the tenants were ready to remove the same at the cost of the landlord. A replication was filed to the written statement on behalf of the landlord^herein it was pleaded that there was no structural changes at the time of creation of tenancy by the landlord. The premises were verified by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh and the construction was found as per the sanctioned plan. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-
"1. Whether the respondent (present petitioner) is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute as they have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute by making addition and alterations? OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present from as false averments have been made in the petition? OPR
3. Relief.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence adduced on record, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, decided both the issues in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. Ultimately, the tenants were ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. On appeal filed by the tenants, the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh upheld the findings of the Rent Controller, and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 5.3.2004. Now the tenants have filed the present revision petition to challenge the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant is that the landlord-respondent has failed to prove on record that the alterations had been made by the tenant. In support of his contention it has been contended that in the ejectment petition it has been alleged by the landlord that the alterations had been made in December 1998, whereas in evidence the landlord has stated that the changes had been made by the tenant about 4-5 years back from the date of institution of the petition. Thus, the counsel contends that the said contradictions are fatal to the case of the landlord.
4. I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the tenant. Besides his own evidence, the landlord has examined Mr. G.B.Singh, Chartered Engineer Consultant (PW2) as well as Mr. Arvind Sandhu, Advocate who was appointed as Local Commissioner (PW3). Mr.G.B.Singh has stated that he inspected demised premises and he prepared the report (Ex.P2) regarding structural conditions existing at site. He stated that the middle courtyard has been completely covered except an area of 300 sq. ft. The steel structure, covering the'open court-yard, is resting on the side walls as well as on the partition walls erected in the open court-yard as well as on the Chhajja on the back shed and the front sheds. It has further been alleged by Mr. G.B.Singh (PW2) that it is not permissible to cover the court-yard in the middle and it is a building violation for which a building could be resumed. Mr. Arvind Sandhu (PW3) in his report (Ex,P4) has stated that the tenant had made violations in the demised premises. In his report Mr. Arvind Sandhu had mentioned that there was digging to the extent of 21/2 feet and that the "tenant has covered all the entire area of court-yard and has built up small rooms for storage etc." In his cross-examination the Local Commissioner specifically stated that the tenants had themselves told him that the additions and alterations had been made by them. In the end of the lengthy cross-examination, this witness volunteered to say that "at the time of inspection it was disclosed by the tenant that all construction raised between the front and rear portion had been raised by him. Though Mr. Arvind Sandhu, Local Commissioner, was subjected to lengthy and cumbersome crossexamination by the counsel for the tenant, but he firmly withstood the same and could not be shaken at any point of time. Even Mr. Brij Mohan, who is a Junior Engineer in the Estate Office and was examined by the tenants as RWl has stated about the building violations made in the demised premises. In the cross-examination this witness stated that as per the report dated 31.7.1976, available on the office record brought by him, 'ho building in question was complete as per the revised plan. The premises were let out to the tenant in the year 1986. The violations in the premises had certainly taken place thereafter. Thus, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the landlord has failed to prove the violations in the demised premises at the level of the tenant.
5. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that tenant has removed the violation in the premises after the decision of the Rent Controller and an application was moved before the Appellate Authority for leading additional evidence with regard thereto. But the Appellate Authority did not allow the tenant to lead the additional evidence and the application was rejected.
6. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because in the written statement the tenants stated that arc willing to remove the violations at the expense of the landlord- Now they have started saying that after passing of the ejectment order by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, they had removed the building violations caused to the suit property. Even if the violations to the property are removed during the pendency of litigation, it would not defeat the right of the landlord to seek ejectment. Otherwise all such petitions would be rendered in fructuous on the ground that the tenant has removed violation caused to the demised premises.
7. Mr. Chctan Mittal further contended that there; are contradictions in the statements made by Mr. G.B.Singh (PW2) and Mr. Arvind Sandhu (PW3), Mr. G.B.Singh (PW2) has stated that he had visited the premises on 15.9.1999. Whereas Mr. Arvind Sandhu (PW3) has alleged that he had inspected the site in the question on 14.9.1999. In view of this, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the reports submitted by them cannot be relied upon.
8. This contention of the learned counsel is also merit less. There may be a slip of the tongue or some typographical mistake. From this minor contradiction, it cannot be made out that the tenant had not made any violations in the demised premises. Both these witnesses have stated that they were accompanied by each other. The reports submitted by them are similar to each other. Mr. Arvind Sandhu, Advocate had been appointed as Local Commissioner by the Rent Controller with the consent of the lawyers appearing on both the sides. Even the witnesses examined by the tenant have made a mention about the violations made in the demised premises. Mr. Brij Mohan (RWl) has stated that there are three building violations which have been made against the sanctioned plan. Mr. S.D. Singh (RW2) in his cross-examination has stated that the coverage of the middle court-yard is not compoundable. In view of the admissions made on behalf of the witnesses examined by the tenant, the contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner becomes meaningless.
9. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vio- lations are of temporary nature and there is no material impairment in the demised premises entitling the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant. In support of his contention the counsel has placed reliance on Ravinder Kumar v. Surinderjit Singh,} 2001(1) R.C.R. 106; Om Parkash of Meerut Cantl. v. Amar Singh and Anr.,2 1987 Haryana Rent Reporter 220; Waryam Singh v. Baldev Singh3 2002(2) R.C.J. 207 (S,C); Raghunath Singh v. Balabitx and Anr.,4 1976 R.C.R. 268; Bir Devinder Singh v. Mangat Ram5 (1995-1)109 P.L.R.728; Jai Gopal Gupta and Ors. v. Bodh Mal6 1969 R.C.R. 590; and Sh. Om Pal v. Sh. Anand SwarupP (1988-2) P.L.R. 699 (S.C.).
10. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also without any force. I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel. The ratio of the authorities cited by Mr.Chetan Mittal is not applicable to the facts appearing in the present case. In the present case, material impairment of the demised premises has been proved by the landlord by leading convincing evidence. In the case reported as Durga Seed Farm v. Raj Kumari Chadha8 (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 643 (S.C.), it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in case the tenant has made the building violations without landlord's permission or consent and thereby exposed the landlord to the peril of resumption of land by the Govt. the question whether the acts of tenant have materially impaired value or utility of buildings becomes insignificant. In Gurbachan Singh and Ors. v. Shivalik Rubber Industries and Ors.? (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 694 (S.C.); it has been held by the Apex Court that the impairment of a building has to be judged from the point of view of the landlord and not of the tenant or anyone else. In this view of afore-mentioned dictum of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners that the violations in the demised premises are of temporary nature and that the same can be removed without causing damage to the building becomes meaningless. Mr. Arvind Sandhu, Local Commissioner, in his report has made a mention that "the tenant has covered all the entire area of courtyard and built up small rooms for storage and for factory working section but has neglected on his part to care the tenanted premises which proves massive structural changes and has diminished the value and utility of the premises." Further it has come in the report of the Local Commissioner that "structural change made by the tenant is barred by building laws and is likely to be the ground of resumption by the Estate Office. The floor of entire area of the premises less front portion is badly effected". Mr. G.B.Singh, Chartered Engineer (PW2) in his report has stated that it is felt that the property has been damaged to the extent it suits the requirements of the tenant without caring for its future utility, financial damage and violations of estate Bye-laws." Even Mr. Brij Mohan, who is the SDO in the Building Estate Office, Chandigarh (RW1), and who has been examined by the tenant-petitioners, has stated on oath that there are three building violations which have been made against the sanctioned plan. Mr. S.D.Singh (RW2) who has also been examined by the tenant, has stated in the cross-examination that the coverage of the middle courtyard is not compoundable. Thus, it stands proved that the tenant has committed material violations in the demised premises and thereby exposed the landlord to the peril of resumption of the building by the Estate Office.
11. Moreover, both the Courts below have given concurrent findings on facts, which cannot be interfered in the revision petition by this Court, it has been so held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dev Kumar (Died) through LRs. v. Smt. Swaran Lata and Ors. A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 510. -A I R 1996 SC 5 10
12. In the light of above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts below.
13. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. The tenant-petitioners are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord-respondent within two months from today.