Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Prakash and proposed to rent out the said accommodation to them. As per the tenants, both the present landlord as well as Dr. Gyan Prakash were asked to make some changes in between the sets so that both sets could be used as one unit so as to make it convenient to the tenants to of use the property as a single office. This was agreed to by the landlord and Dr. Gyan Prakash, his brother and they accordingly carved out one rt passage in the shape of an open door in the common wall separating the sets. They also opened one small service window in the said wall. As per the tenants, these minor changes were made by the landlord and his brother of their own free will. As per the tenants, as per the desire of the two brothers, two separate rent deeds were made in respect of their separate rent accommodations and the same were in fact in occupation of the tenants since 1981. On these basis, it was contended by the tenants, that no additions or structural changes had been made by them at any point of time. According to the tenants, the landlord as well as his brother were frequently visiting the Branch Office premises ever since the inception of their respective tenancies and they were fully aware of the structural position of the premises. On these basis, the tenants denied the claim of the landlord.

year 1981 by way of an independent agreement. Mr. Gupta further argued that right from the day when the tenant-Company was inducted as a tenant till the filing of the application under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, no written consent of whatsoever was ever given by the landlord to the tenant-Company to carve out either any passage or to create any window in the walls of the rt let out premises to connect the same with the other premises, which were even otherwise independently taken on rent by the tenant-company from one Dr. Gyan Prakash and that too by an independent agreement before the year 1981. Mr. Gupta further argued that in fact the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners were self contradictory and self destructive. According to Mr. Gupta, on one hand it was being urged by the petitioners that both the Courts below erred in not appreciating that the landlord failed to prove on record that any passage or window was in fact carved out from the common wall at all and on the other hand, the case being put forth by the petitioners was that either everything was done by the landlord himself or it was done with express consent of the landlord. It was further argued by Mr. Gupta that in the present case, the act of the tenant-Company had resulted in opening of a passage and window from the common wall of the set of the present landlord and that of Dr. Gyan Prakash resulting in these two sets becoming one and by creating an opening in such a manner so as to connect the premises let out by the present landlord with those of another is nothing but an act .

produced on record by the tenant-Company to substantiate this contention of their's. It is a matter of record that no written document has been produced by the tenant-Company on record from which it could be inferred that the passage and the window were carved out from the of common wall either by the landlord on the asking of the tenant-Company or by the tenant-Company with the consent of the landlord. No evidence rt has been led by the tenant-Company from which it could be inferred that the said alterations were in fact carried out by the landlord voluntarily on the asking of the tenant-Company in the year 1981 when his set was taken on rent by the tenant-Company. On the other hand, landlord on the basis of evidence placed by him on record has duly proved and established that the alterations were carried out by the tenant-Company without his consent written or otherwise. This assumes importance in view of the fact that it is an admitted position that the adjoining set did not belong to the present landlord but was owned by some other person, who incidentally also filed an eviction petition against the tenant-

Company on the ground of materially impairing the value of the rented premises by carving out a passage and a window from the common wall of his set and of the present landlord without his consent. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of Dr. Sharma that the passage and window in the common wall were not carved out by the tenant-Company unilaterally without the consent of the landlord, but these alterations were voluntarily done by the landlord on the verbal asking of the tenant-