CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1985) 09 P&H CK 0028

Vas Dev Represented by Ram Kishan and Another vs Om Parkash

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 September 1985

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.C. Mital, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 1697 of 1978

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 378 words

G.C. Mital, J

1.

The short point involved in this revision is whether setting up of a shew case in front of one of the dooms of the premises and of a wooden try-room under the staircase by a tenant, who took the premises for carrying on tailoring business, can be said to have impaired materially the value and utility of the demised premises The Appellate Authority was of the view that it would not, whereas the view of the Rent Controller was to the contrary.

2.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this revision. A show case have been put up in front of one of the doors. The user of the premises in entirely in the hands of the tenant. He may not open the door and may keep it closed for as long time as he likes and while it will remain closed, he would not get light and air from that door. Instead, if a show case is put up in front of the door, it will not give any cause to the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant Of course, things would have been different if the tenant had removed the door and had put a Pacca structure in the door by closing it permanently. Therefor, merely setting up of a showcase in front of the door, cannot be said to give a cause to the landlord to seek ejectment

3.

As regards the try-room, it has been found from the statement of Wazir Chand (A.W.3), who is landlord''s witness, that the try-room is made of wood and glass. There is no evidence on the record that this would amount to materially impairing the value and utility of the premises. The tenancy was for running the tailoring business and setting up of a try-room of a temporary nature without affecting the main building, would also not come within the ambit of the aforesaid ingredient to give a cause to the landlord to seek eviction. Hence, I am in agreement with the Appellate Authority that no ground of eviction is made out.

4.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision is devoid merit and is dismissed with costs.