Skylark Handloom Export Linkers vs Lekh Raj Batra

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the Courts below.

The landlord Lekh Raj Batra sought the ejectment of his tenant M/s Skylark Handloom Export Linkers from the premises bearing No. 0-15, situated in the Industrial Area, Panipat. The said premises were let out on January 1, 1979 for eleven months vide rent note Exhibit ''A-1'' on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/-. After the expiry of the eleven months'' period on November 30, 1979, the tenant continued to occupy the premises as statutory tenant. He filed the ejectment application on December 3, 1981 inter alia on the ground that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises by its acts of commission and ommission as the tenant has raised unauthorised construction on the demised premises. In the written statement, the tenant denied the said allegations of unauthorised construction. His plea was that under the rent note Exhibit ''A-1'', he was given permission to make construction on the tenanted premises and he carried out the additions and alterations in the premises strictly according to the terms of the rent note. According to the tenant, he constructed the portion shown in yellow colour in site plan, Exhibit ''R-1'' attached with the written statement in the years 1973 and onwards as per the terms and conditions agreed in the rent not and, therefore, there was no question of any unauthorised construction, as alleged.

The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence and contents of the rent note Exhibit ''A-1'', came to the conclusion that the unauthorised constructions were in existence for the last two years and that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by raising unauthorised construction on the demised premises; and, therefore, the tenant was liable to ejectment. Consequently, ejectment order was passed.

In appeal before the Appellate Authority the only point argued was whether the tenant was competent to carry out the additions and alterations which he had done according to the terms of the rent note or not. The learned Counsel for the tenant frankly conceded before the Appellate Authority that if the tenant was not permitted to carry out the additions and alterations according to the terms of the rent note, then he was liable to be evicted from the premises. Thus, the Appellate Authority, after the perusal of the rent note and the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the terms of the rent note did not authorise the tenant to carry out the additions or alterations in the building of the magnitude which he has done. Consequently, the eviction order was maintained.

The learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioner vehemently contended that the rent note Exhibit ''A-1'' clearly provides that whatever additional expenditure will be made on the construction raised by him will be taken away at the time of his eviction and in case the landlord wanted the same to retain, he will pay the market price at the time for the same. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, in view of this contemplation in the rent note, it could not be held by the authorities below that the construction raised by the tenant was unauthorised. It was further contended that it has nowhere been held that the said construction has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and, therefore, no eviction order could be passed on that basis. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, it was a clear case of acquiscence as the tenant had started raising construction in the year 1979 onwards whereas ejectment application was filed in December, 1981. The landlord has been accepting the rent during this period and. therefore, by his own act and conduct he was estopped from seeking ejectment on this ground. It was also argued that the landlord himself did not come into the witness box and, therefore, an adverse inference be drawn against him According to the learned Counsel, the whole construction raised by the tenant on the demised premises is of temporary nature and, therefore, it could not be held that it has impaired the value and utility in any manner. In support of his above-said contentions he referred to Puran Chand v. Krishan Gopal (1986) 89 P. L. R. 130, Ved Parkash v. Darshan Lal Jain (1986) 90 P. L. R. 90, and Om Prakash Vs. Amar Singh and Others, .

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord-Respondent submitted that before the Appellate Authority it was conceded that in case it is held that the tenant was not permitted to carry out the additions and alterations according to the terms of the rent note, the tenant was liable to be evicted. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the tenant could not be allowed to agitate that the construction was temporary or it did not materially impair the utility of the demised premises. The learned Counsel argued that the two authosities below, on the perusal of the rent note, have come to the conclusion that the tenant was never authorised to raise the construction of the magnitude he has done and, therefore this being a finding of fact, should not be interfered with in this petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the rent note and the relevant evidence on the record. The relevant portion of the rent note has been reproduced by the Appellate Authority which reads as under:

KOI MAZID LAGAT LAGAUENGA TOH WEH KABZA CHHORNE KE SAMEI UTHA LUGAN YAH AGAR MALIK LENHA CHAHE GA TOH US SAMEI KI KEMAT SE LE SAKEGA.

From the said language in the rent note it could not be successfully argued that the tenant was authorised to raise construction to such an extent as has been done by the tenant, as admitted in the plan Exhibit ''R-1''. The Appellate Authority has rightly observed that -

Had it been the intention of the parties that the tenant was authorised to carry out further additions and alterations in the the premises and to make such a huge construction which he has made, it would have been so specifically stated in the rent note. There is no mention at all in this rent note that the tenant was competent to make further additions and alterations in the premises. The interpretation to the clause mentioned above given by the writer of this document, appears to be very reasonable and plausible. The words "further expenditure incurred" can mean expenditure incurred on carrying out pipe fittings, sanitary wares or the amount spent on making electric fittings making wooden partitions etc I agree with the findings of the learned Rent Controller that the terms of the rent note did not authorise the tenant to carry out the additions or alterations in the building of magnitude, which he has done.

In these circumstances I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below to be interefered within this petition Moreover, even if two views are possible, that will not itself provide any ground for interefence in revisional juris-diction.

As regards the other contention raised on behalf of the tenant-Petitioner, the same could not be allowed to be raised in this petition because it was clearly conceded before the Appellate Authority when it was observed: "his learned Counsel frankly concedes that if he (tenant) was not permitted to carry out these additions and alterations according to the terms of the rent note, then he must be evicted from the premises."

Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided the tenant gives an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month that after the expiry of three months'' period, vacant possession will be handed over and the rent for this period will be paid regularly in advance by the 10th of every month.