ONKAR Vs. SUGAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment both the revision petitions, namely Civil Revision Nos.458 and 457 of 1986 can conveniently be dispose of together. The question involved in both the petitions is identical.

(2.) THE revision petitions have been filed by Onkar (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner'). The petitioner had filed both the petitions for eviction with respect to shop Nos.6 and 7 in Babu Ram Market, Garh Bazar. Ballabgarh asserting that rent had been settled at Rs.200/ - P.M. The ejectment of the respondent was claimed on the ground of non payment of rent and impairment of value and utility of the premises. It had been asserted that respondent has removed the intervening wall and has constructed the two shops into one. The entire arrears of rent had been tendered on the first date of hearing as claimed. Regarding it no controversy had been raised in this Court. Therefore, the sole controversy was if the respondent by his act and conduct has impaired the value and utility of the premises in question.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller found that shops were let at Rs.200/ - P.M. each. However, the Rent Controller returned the findings that the petitioner had tried to split the tenancy of one big shop into two. The conduct of the petitioner could not be appreciated and the petition was dismissed. It was held that the respondent has not impaired the value and utility of the premises. The petitioner had preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority held that there were two shops let separately on two different occasions; that shop No.7 was let in the year 1973 and shop No.6 was let in the year 1976. However, with respect to intervening wall, the learned Appellate Authority held that when the second shop was let, the electric meter was removed by the petitioner -landlord. On basis of that inferences were drawn in terms that it is manifest that the respondent wanted to use two shops without intervening wall and the petitioner had permitted removal of the same. The inference was also drawn for the fact that the petitioner failed to state in the pleadings as to when the wall was removed. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been filed.