Smt. Shail Kumari vs Baij Nath

R.N. Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Shall Kumari, lendlady Petitioner, against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana dated 1st April, 1977.

Briefly the case of the Petitioner is that she gave on lease the portion situated in front of the stair-case on a monthly rent of Rs. 14/-. The Respondent with the help of Gulzari Lal and Darbari Lal demolished the shop, chaburra and stair case by which the value and utility of the premises let out to the Respondent has been materially impaired. Consequently she prayed that the Respondent be ordered to be ejected from the demised premises. The petition has been contested by the Respondent who stated that on 24th May, 1970 the wall of chobaro of adjoining shop on the eastern side belonging to Kulwant Rei fell on account of which the roof, front well and door were damaged He informed Jagdish Rai, the husband of the landlady who asked him to repair the damaged portion Jagdish Rai also told him that the expenses incurred would be adjusted in the rent. It is further stated that the damaged portion was consequently repaired by him. He further stated that the shop was in the same condition in which it was prior to a time when it was given on lease to him.

The learned Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issue:

Whether the Respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds alleged in para 2 of the petition ?

Relief

He held that the Respondent had materially made changes in the building which had impaired its value and utility. Consequently he ordered ejectment of the tenant. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority which reversed the finding of the Rent Controller. It held that the rent note executed by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner was not admissible into evidence and, therefore, it could not be held that property was given on lease to him. It, however, did not decide the matter on merits. Consequently it accepted the appeal and dismissed the application for ejectment, The landlady has come up in revision to this Court.

The only contention of Mr. Sarin is that the Petitioner led evidence that the Respondent had materially changed the property given on tease to him. He further submits that the fact of alleged repairs has been admitted by the Respondent in the written statement. However, the Appellate Authority without considering the evidence and the admission of the Respondent reversed the finding of the Rent Controller after holding that the rent note is not admissible into evidence.

I have duly considered the argument and find force in the contention of Mr. Sarin. Even if it may be assumed that the rent note is not admissible into evidence it was the duty of Appellate Authority to decide the case after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on the record which he failed to do. In the circumstances I accept the revision petition, set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remand the case to it for deciding the appeal afresh after hearing the parties.

The Dirties are directed to appear before the District Judge (Appellate Authority), Ludhiana on 15th March, 1985. That Appellate Authority shall either itself decide the matter or entrust it to another Appellate Authority of competent jurisdiction for its decision.

No order as to costs.