Khushi Ram and others vs Om Parkash

Gokal Chand Mitral, J.—The tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.1. 1972 to 30th September, 1973 and the landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant on that ground. Another ground was taken that the tenant made material alterations which had impaired the value and utility of the premises. The tenant did not make any tender within the time allowed by law and in the written statement took a plea that he had been allowed to repair the roof of the back room by an order passed in proceedings u/s 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called ''the Act''), which prevailed at the time of filing of the ejectment petition and he was allowed to spend Rs. 1000/- for doing so, but he had actually spent Rs. 1961-17 P and since the amount allowed u/s 12 of the Act was more than the arrears of rent, he was not liable to be ejected. The other ground was denied.

To start with the Rent Controller dismissed the application by order dated 27th February, 1976, but on landlord''s appeal, the eviction order was passed by order dated 26.4.1976 on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant went to the Financial Commissioner in revision which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision keeping in view the observations of the Revisional Authority. The Appellate Authority, after remand found that in pursuance of order passed u/s 12 of the Act, the tenant had been allowed to replace the roof of the back portion in which he was not to spend more than Rs. 1000/-. It was also found that the tenant was at liberty to replace the roof of the front portion but on his own expenses. As regards the replacement of the roof of the back room, it was found that the tenant had spent Rs. 347/-. Since the arrears of rent along with interest, house tax and costs came to Rs. 733.60 it was concluded that after adjusting the amount spent, the tenant was still in arrears and since no tender was made within time as permitted by law, eviction order of the tenant was passed on 6.4.1977. The other ground was found against the landlord. This is tenant''s revision.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision. The Appellate Authority has considered the matter of the amount spent by the tenant on repair of the back room on the basis of the evidence led in the case. The learned counsel for the tenant could not point out any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority. Since the tenant has spent Rs. 337/- on the repairs as against Rs. 733.60 which was due from him, the order of ejectment has to be maintained.

All that the learned counsel for the tenant has shown is that the receipts Exhibits R 1 to R 4 could not be ignored by the Appellate Authority and if material supplied vide these receipts is taken into consideration then the amount spent in repairs would exceed the amount due from the tenant. He further urges that in proceedings u/s 12 of the Act, the tenant was allowed to spend Rs. 347/- on labour charges; whereas the Appellate Authority has allowed Rs 100/- (Rs. 90/- under one head and Rs. 10/- under the other), towards the labour charges. This matter has been considered by the Appellate Authority. Both the points have no merit because the tenant has repaired the front room also for which the landlord had not to pay as is clear from the order passed u/s 12 of the Act. That is why, the Appellate Authority has taken pains in finding out as to what was spent on the authorised repairs. u/s 12 of the Act, the tenant was permitted to spend Rs. 655/- towards material and Rs. 345/- towards labour charges. In fact, the tenant has spent Rs. 247/- towards material and Rs. 100/- towards labour charges, i.e. Rs. 347/- including white-washing charges. In the order section 12 of the Act, over and above Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 50/- were also allowed to be spent for white-washing. Hence, both the arguements are devoid of merit Consequently, the Appellate Authority was right in ordering the eviction on this ground.

The other ground of eviction was that the tenant has raised walls by 1 to 1 1/2 ft. and has replaced the Kacha roofs by a Pacca roof The Appellate Authority did not order eviction on this grond because it concluded that it could not be said that by raising the height of the walls and by setting up Pacca roofs any damage had been proved. It has been ruled by this Court that the right of the tenant is only to the user of the premises and he cannot make any alterations in the premises even if they increase the value of the property. It has to be looked from the view point of the landlord. In this case, one may not go to the extent because the tenant has admittedly raised the height of the walls by 1 to 1 1/2 ft. and has raised Pacca roof instead of a Kacha one. In law, he is not permitted to do so nor was he permitted to do so by the order passed u/s 12 of the Act. He has been only authorised to replace the roof of the kind as it existed. The raising of the walls would certainly put more pressure on the foundations and similarly setting up of the Pacca roof would also do so. In one case, act of the tenant may mean that the building would become more weak and would fall early than it would have fallen in the normal course. In another case a tenant may make the building more strong but law does not permit a tenant to tinker with the building except to carry out the repairs when permitted by the Court. Under these circumstances, I disagree with the Appellate Authority and hold that raising of the walls by 1 to 1 1/2 ft. and laying of Pacca roof would certainly impair the value of the premises. This view of mine finds support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Narain Singh Vs. Bakson Laboratories and Another, . Hence the tenant is liable to be evicted on this ground as well.

For the reason recorded above, the revision is dismissed but with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed two weeks, time to vacate the premises.