Municipal Committee, Samana vs Krishan Murari and another

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a tenants revision petition against the order of ejectment passed against it by the Rent Controller, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The premises is a Dharamshala, situate in Samana, District Patiala. On 8th March, 1963, the trustees of this Dharamshala gave it on rent to the Municipal Committee Samana, for running a Family Planning Centre for a period of one year on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. On 16th February, 1970, the said trustees filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the Municipal Committee, for its ejectment from this Dharamshala. The application was based on three grounds viz. (a) non payment of rent for some period: (b) that the tenant had used the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased; and (c) that by its acts the tenant had impaired materially the value and the utility of the premises.

This application was contested by the tenant Since the arrears of rent together with interest and costs of the application were paid on the first date of hearing, the first ground was no longer available to the landlord for the eviction of the tenant.

On the other two grounds, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have come to the conclusion that the tenant was using the demised premises for purposes other than those for which it had been rented out to it and thereby the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the said premises. Another objection was also taken by the tenant that the landlord had not issued notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the ejectment application was not maintainable. But the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have found that this was a tenancy for a fixed period and after the expiry of the period, no such notice was necessary.

It may be stated that the Rent Controller had passed an ex-parte order of ejectment against the tenant, who filed an application for setting aside that order, but it appears that the said application was not persued, because the tenant thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the ex-parte order of ejectment and when the objection was raised there, the said authority dismissed the same, holding that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte order. Against the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority, the tenant has come here in revision.

Learned Counsel has raised only one contention before me. He submits that although in the ejectment application, the grounds of ejectment have been mentioned, but they have not been substantiated by the evidence produced by the landlord in their support two witnesses had been examined by the landlord. One was Ratti Ram, who was a shopkeeper, and his house was adjacent to the premises in dispute. He stated that the tenant had closed the premises for the last 10 or 11 months and he did not know what was stored therein. The other was Krishan Murari, the trustee, who appeared as A.W. 2, and he deposed that the premises had been given to the tenant for opening a Family Planning Centre, but the Municipal Committee was not running the Centre for the last one year and it had closed the said Dharamshala and by doing so, the condition of the premises had deteriorated.

The ground of ejectment given in section 13(2)(iii) of the Rent Act is that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land. It has been proved by evidence that the tenant was not using the premises for the purposes for which it was let out for the last one year. The Family Planning Centre is not being run for the last one year. It is further established that the said premises is closed for over a year and according to the landlord, by doing so, the value of the premises had deteriorated. This evidence has been believed both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and on this evidence, it can be safely said that the tenant has committed such an act, which is likely to impair materially the value of the building. This is indisputably a valid ground for ejectment under the Rent Act.

I would, therefore, reject this revision petition, but make no order as to costs. The tenant is however, allowed a period of one month to vacate the premises.