MOHAN LAL ASHOK RAJ Vs. LAJWANTI DEVI
LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-45
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 22,1997

MOHAN LAL ASHOK RAJ Appellant
VERSUS
LAJWANTI DEVI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOBIND RAM V. SHRIMATI KUSHALYA RANI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR. V. FAQUIR CHAND AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN KUMAR V. ROSHAN LAL ANAND AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDER V. VALAYATI RAM [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV RAJ V. HARPREET SINGH,MINOR THROUGH NEXT FRIEND [REFERRED TO]
BIR DEVINDER SINGH V. MANGAT RAM [REFERRED TO]
MASSA SINGH V. CHAUDHARY BARU MALL CHARITABLE TRUST. DHARAMSHALA DHURI AND ON. [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. AMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
K A ANTHAPPAI VS. C AHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
M/S BHATIA CLOTH MILLS VS. SHRI VASDEV [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.)The petitioner is a tenant of the premises owned by the respondent. Respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under section 14 of the Himachai Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 on two grounds, namely, default in payment of rest and causing additions. And material alterations to the building thereby impairing the value of the building materially, besides causing damages. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent bat negatived the other ground urged by the respondent the aggrieved respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The latter has allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner was guilty of making such additions and alterations to the building whereby (he value of the building was materially impaired and caused damage to the building. Consequently, the Appellate Authority directed eviction of the petitioner herein. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even the pleadings of the respondent before the Rent Controller suffers from vital deficiencies inasmuch as it kid omitted to specifically refer to the acts committed by the tenant, which according to the respondent materially impaired the value of the building. Second!y, it is urged that material portion of the evidence has been over -looked by the said Authority and the findings recorded by the said Authority are, therefore, vitiated. Thirdly, it is argued that even if the petitioner had caused certain additions and alterations to the building, they are of such a nature that they could be easily removed later and the building can be restored to its original position without much of expenses. Consequently, according to learned counsel, the requirement of section 14(2) (iii) is not satisfied. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited a number of judgments including those of the Supreme Court
(3.)Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that it is not necessary to set out -the evidence in the pleadings and what has been pleaded by the respondent before the Rent Controller is more than sufficient to put the petitioner on notice of the ground of eviction. It is also argued that both party was taken by surprise and both the parties had adduced such evidence as available to them in order to establish their respective cases. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the Appellant Authority has appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and the findings of fact arrived at by the said Authority are not liable to be interfered with in a revision petition. It is contended that the question whether the value of the building has been materially impaired by the acts committed by the tenant should be considered from the point of view of the landlord and not that of the tenant. It is lastly argued that the findings of the Appellate Authority warrant the conclusion that the building has been damaged by the tenant and the value thereof has been materially impaired and, therefore, the petitioner is liable for eviction.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.