AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bali, J.—This revision has been directed against the orders of concurrence recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissing the petition of petitioner-landlord filed by her u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The surviving ground that has been pressed into service is that the respondent tenant has made material alterations, thus, diminishing the value and utility of the demised premises.
The parties went to trial on the following issues:-
"1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises on the ground mentioned in petition in para No. 3? OPA.
On which rate of rent the respondent is in possession of the premises? OPA.
Whether notice u/s 106 TP Act is valid? OPA.
Relief."
As mentioned above, after resultant trial, the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority negatived the plea of the petitioner on the surviving ground of eviction, as noted above.
Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories etc., 1981 C.L.J. (Civil) 414, vehemently contends that unauthorised permanent conversion of verandah into rooms and the installation of a door by a tenant are acts likely to impair materially the value and utility of the demised premises.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case including the evidence led by the parties. There is absolutely no need to go into the question raised by Mr Sarin as in the present case firm finding of fact has been recorded that the tin shed was not raised by the respondent-tenant. So far as shutter is concerned, it was also fixed with the consent and approval of the landlord which, though was oral, but still the tenant was not a defaulter because no written consent was required as envisaged u/s 13(2) (iii) of the Act. I have also gone though the report of the learned Rent Controller who personally inspected the sport. He, in his aforesaid report, observed as follows :-
There is no Chabutra in front of the shop and a shutter is fixed on, the edge or the Chabutra thereby converting it into a covered place by placing tin roof from the side of the shutter upto the entrance of the shop. The side walls are of wood.
There are no cracks or damages to any portion of the wall and the inner walls were also seen by removing cloth bundles as desired by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The walls are in good condition. There is nothing at the spot from which it could be inferred that the value and utility of the shop was diminished on account of fixing of shutter and the tin roof. The tin roof rests on wooden balies and there is no good deal of pressure on the walls.
Once it is proved that insofar as tin shed is concerned, the same was already there, before the demised premises were let out to the tenant and that the said shed was fixed with the consent and approval of the landlord, nothing else was required to be gone into. ,
Finding no merit in this revision, I dismiss the same, leaving however, the parties to bear their own costs.