TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-S and 7-S. The respondent No. 1, Shivalak Rubber Industries through its proprietor, Dev Raj was inducted as a tenant of Karam Singh in shops Nos. 4-S to 6-S together with 10 ft. vacant land behind the shops with effect from May 1, 1958 on a monthly rent of ₹ 28/-. The respondents Nos. 1-A to 1-F are the partners of respondent No. 1-firm. Later by a rent note dated October 25, 1965 the respondent No. 1-C Dev Raj obtained shops Nos. 2-S and 3-S from late Karam Singh together with 10 ft. open land behind the said shops and 7 ft. wide strip of vacant land with the corresponding length to shops Nos. 2-S to 6-S behind/adjoining 10 ft. wide strip of land on a monthly rent of ₹ 30/-. Thus shops Nos. 2-S to 6-S with the aforementioned vacant land were let out to the respondents Nos. 1 and 1-A to 1-F. The owner/landlord Karam Singh expired on July 13, 1972 leaving behind him the present appellants as his sons and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as his daughter. Karam Singh has executed a Deed of Will dated June 28, 1972 in favour of the appellants in respect of the suit premises by virtue of which the appellants became the owner/landlords of the respondents Nos. 1, 1-A to 1-F. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed land from the kothi of respondent No. 1-A by fixing one big wooden door and one steel door in place of the demolished boundary wall, which opened in the courtyard of the kothi of respondent No. 1-A. Adjacent to the wooden door a small triangular shaped kothri with a door opening in the courtyard of the kothi has also been constructed. A brick staircase has also been constructed from over this kothri as an access from the courtyard of the kothi to the roof of the shed made over the demised land as a direct approach. The open space at the back of the shops let out to the respondents has thus been converted by including the same into the shed with a shed with a pucca roof without the permission of the appellants. It has been alleged that the tenants-respondents have constructed a lintel roof over the shops Nos. 2-S to 6-S and mis-appropriated the costly wooden building material used in the original roof and thereby completely changed the shape of the building by closing it from the side of the G. T. Road merging the demised premised with the residential kothi of respondent No. 1-A situated in the west. Further allegation of the appellants was that the floor of the demised shops ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the demised premises were let out of carrying industrial business and it was being used for the same purpose. After recording the evidence and on evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence the Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the landlord appellants except issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relating to the alleged unauthorised additions and alterations in the demised premises which are said to have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises and sub-letting a part of it to respondent No. 5. The Rent Controller took the view that the first tenancy in respect of shops Nos. 4-S to 6-S were created by late Karam Chand in favour of respondent No. 1 vide rent note dated May. 14, 1958 and the second tenancy was also created by late Karam Chand in favour of respondent No. 1 though the respondent No. 1-C in respect of shops Nos. 2-S and 3-S with 10 ft. wide open space beings these shops and that both the tenancies were consolidated. The Rent Controller also took the view that by virtue of the Deed of Will dated June 28, 1972 executed by the former landlord Karam Chand in favour of his two sons, the appellants herein they became the owner and landlord of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tenants-respondents do not amount to alteration impairing materially the value and utility of the demised premises within the meaning of Section 13(2)(iii) of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter as the Act). He submitted that the evidence on record oral and documentary sufficiently established that the tenant-respondents have drastically changed the nature, character and form of the demised premises which has not only impaired materially the value but also impaired the utility thereof. He urged that all the Courts have not considered the material evidence in a right perspective and the statement of the witnesses have either been ignored on material aspects or mis-read and twisted to mean otherwise than what is intended to depose by them which has resulted into grave injustice. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties we were taken through the material evidence and the documents on record. After perusal of the same and the judgments of the Court below we find that the Courts below fell into patent error in taking the view that they have taken with regard to the nature and character of the alleged additions and alterations which clearly fall within the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Apart from the evidence discussed above there is also the evidence with regard to the issuance of notices Ext. AW 16/18/19 and AW 11/1. Ext. AW/11, 3 to 6 by Municipal Corporation to respondent Chander Muni. These notices were issued to Chander Muni under Section 269 and 270 of the Municipal Corporation Act for the unauthorised construction in the premises in suit. These notices relate to the year 1981, From the evidence discussed above it is abundantly clear that the tenant-respondent had made the additions and alterations in the demised premises as alleged by the appellants. It may be pointed out that though the Rent Controller and the appellate authority both have found the additions and alterations having been made by the respondents in the demised premises but according to them the construction was either by the permission of the appellants or the same did not amount to the additions and alterations of such a nature as to impair materially the value or utility of the building and the rented land within the meaning of Section 13(2) (iii) of the Act. This finding of the Courts below in respect of the construction no doubt would be finding of fact, but the question whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tenant or any one else. This Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 13(2) (iii) of the Act in the cast of Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, JT 1993 (3) SC 171 expressed the view as follows:- The impairment of the value or utility of the building is from the point of the landlord and not of the tenant. The first limb of clause III of sub-section (2) of Section 13 is impairment of the building due to acts committed by the tenant and the second limb of the utility or value of the building has been materially impaired. The acts of the tenant must be such that erection of the wall had materially imparied the value or utility of the demised premises . In the instant case before us as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs it is distinctly clear the tenant-respondents have constructed a lintel roof over all the 5 shops Nos. 2 to 6 by removing their original roof and they not only removed the intervening or partition walls of the shops but also removed the doors of the 5 shops and converted them into sheds, store and kothries. They also converted the verandah in front of the shops into sheds by closing it from the front by masonry work. The door of shop No. 2 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of the demised premises from the point of view of the appellant-landlords within the meaning of Section 13(2) (iii) of the Act. The High Court, therefore, fell in patent error in dismissing the revision in limine without going into the correct legal position involved in the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the firm view that this is a case which squarely falls within the mischief of the provisions contained in Section 13 (2) (iii) of the Act which make the tenants-respondents liable for eviction form the demised premises. Consequently, the appeal succeed and is hereby allowed with costs throughout. The order of the High Court and the Judgment and orders of the Courts below are set aside. The application of the appellant-landlords for eviction of the tenants-respondents is allowed. It is directed that the appellants shall be place in actual physical possession of the demised premises after evicting the tenants-respondents therefrom. We are, however, aware of the fact that the respondents-tenants are running an industry in the demised premises and it may not be possible for them to immediately vacate the premises. We therefore, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
