Mehma Singh vs Rakesh Kumar

Surya Kant, J.—No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier also on May 29, 2006, the petitioner remained unrepresented. This revision petition has been filed by the landlord whose ejectment petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Kharar as well as by the First Appellate Authority, Rupnagar.

As can be seen from the impugned orders, the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question on 22.4.1997 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. His ejectment was sought by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent had allegedly demolished the front room of the shop without oral or written consent of the petitioner and, thus, by reducing the size of the shop by 7 feet in length, he has impaired its value and utility.

Upon notice, the respondent put in appearance before the Rent Controller and filed his written statement. While he admitted that the shop at the time when it was rented out to him was measuring 8 feet X 19 feet, he took up the plea that in compliance to the directions issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the encroachments existing on the roads were being removed and the shop in question being located on Ropar-Chandigarh Highway, a part of it was found to have been constructed over the Government land and declaring the same to be an encroachment upon the public road, the authorities of the PWD Department carried out the demolition thereby reducing the size of the shop.

As can be seen from the impugned orders, both the Courts have held that the respondent would not have given anything by demolishing the demised premises. It has been further found that the respondent, due to the demolition of a part of the shop, suffered the loss and is further required to pay the same rent for the reduced area of the shop. Relying upon the statement of Tej Pal Singh (RW-3), who is an employee of PWD Department and who also proved the site plan Ex.RW3/A. The Courts below has concurrently held that a part of the shop which was found constructed upon the public land was demolished by the PWD Department after carrying out demarcation and after declaring that it was a public property. It has, thus, been held that the respondent did not demolish the shop in question and, thus, has not impaired the value and utility thereof. The above-noticed facts speak for themselves. There is a concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below which appears to be based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent demolish the shop appears to be illogical on the face of it inasmuch as the respondent could not have reduced the size of the shop more so when he is required to pay the same amount of rent for the shop.

On the other hand, the evidence led by the respondent especially of the official witness of the PWD Department coupled with the site plan and the demarcation report etc. clearly reveals that a part of the shop was razed in the demolition derive carried out by the PWD Authorities in their effort to remove encroachments on the public roads. No fault can, thus, be found with the aforementioned facts or the conclusions drawn by the Courts below.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.