Siri Ram vs Smt Shila Rani

Surinder Singh, J.—This Revision Petition arises out of a concurrent decision of two Rent Control Authorities. The respondent landlady filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute, which is mentioned in the ejectment application as "premises marked ''L'' in green colour in the site plan attached." The boundaries of the disputed property have also been mentioned According to the case of the respondent, the property in question which was a part of khasra No. 14-17, originally belonged to Dr. Ramesh Chander who had let out the same to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- and at the time of the said lease, the petitioner was permitted to construct the shop as shown in green colour in the plan A-3. The property was lateron purchased by the respondent from Dr. Ramesh Chander and she had, thus, become the landlady. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought on two grounds, namely, default in payment of arrears of rent and material impairment of the value and utility of the premises caused by the construction of a new room alongwith an incomplete bala khana. The ejectment application was resisted by the petitioner and the Rent Controller framed the necessary issues to cover the points in controversy. The ground of default is no longer in dispute and the only point on which the parties fought the battle, is as to whether the petitioner had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence produced by the parties held that by raising the unauthorised construction over the site in question, the petitioner had made himself liable for eviction. The petitioner was, thus, ordered to be evicted from the premises, though he was allowed about two months time to vacate the same. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller. The present Revision Petition has now been filed with a view to impugn the verdict of both the Authorities.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted certain points which may be noticed. It is contended in the first instance that what was let out of the petitioner, was only rented land and the Authorities below were not justified in ordering eviction of the petitioner from the buildings constructed on the said land. The argument is absolutely without force In the first place, no such objection was ever raised in the written statement filed by the petitioner, nor was any issue struck on the point. The petitioner cannot be allowed to raise such a point for the first time in the present Revision Petition Apart from this, it is not conceivable that the Rent Control Authorities should order the eviction of the petitioner only from the land in question and at the same time allow the petitioner to continue occupation of the building on the said land. The contention of the Learned Counsel, is, therefore, repelled.

The second submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of the Authorities below that the value and utility of the building had been impaired, was erroneous. Here again, the argument is without force. There is hardly any dispute and, in fact, the petitioner was obliged to admit in his statement made before the Rent Controller that he had constructed an additional room on the site. The Authorities below also recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioner had raised some construction on the first floor of the premises which he could not complete. In view of these findings and the admission of the petitioner himself, the Authorities below were quite correct in holding that by raising un authorised construction on the site, the value and utility of the building had been impaired. There is no ground made out for varying this finding. The ejectment of the petitioner from the premises is, therefore, inevitable.

The last submission of the Learned Counsel is that the pre decessor of the respondent, i.e., the original landlord had permitted the construction of the shop comprising two khans and if the petitioner is to be evicted from the premises in dispute, he should be allowed to remove the malba of the entire structure which is now standing on the site. The contention of the petitioner can, however, be accepted only partly. It is not refuted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the respondent purchased the property and became its landlord, the shop in question was already in existence and hence it was the respondent who is the rightful owner of the shop having purchased the entire property from its previous owner Though, strictly speaking, the petitioner having raised the new structure in addition to the shop which had been permitted to be constructed, he would not be legally entitled to the malba of that additional structure. However, the Learned Counsel for the respondent does not object to the petitioner removing the said malba and he is, therefore, permitted to do so.

No other point arises in this Revision Petition which is without force and is consequently dismissed The petitioner is however, allowed to vacate the premises within one month from today, during which period he may remove the malba of the additional structure which he has raised, but he shall do so only in such a manner that the original shop which he was allowed to construct and was actually constructed, would remain as it is.

In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of the Revision Petition.