Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 :-

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.