- (1.) We have heard Mr. M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the respondent. From the terms of the allotment of the property in favour of the respondent by Chandigarh Administratrion, it is clear that the allotment under a lease was as a Show-Room. In seeking to evict the appellant from the premises the respondent alleges as under: " The additions and alteration on account of the construction of this shed have caused damage to the building and this construction has materially impaired the value and utility of the building. The building can be resumed also by the Estate Officer on account of this unauthorised construction. It is likely that on account of this unauthorised construction, the Estate Office may demolish the shed at any time, which can cause a great damage to the building because the enforcement staff whenever demolishes the building, they demolish in such hopeless manner that it may cause great damage to the other parts of the building. The shed is supported by a big and heavy iron rod angles and guarders etc. The load of the whole shed has been put upon the walls which are not meant for this purpose. That the respondent has also caused a great damage to the building. The respondent has got affixed some machines in the building. On account of putting up of the machines, it has also caused damage to the building. These machines have been put by the respondent without the written consent of the petitioner. The premises were taken on rent by the respondent for show-room-cum-office purpose and it was never the intention of the parties to use the premises for affixing the machines. This amounts to change of user also." In answer to this the appellant urges that: "The tenant is entitled to make additions and alterations which are temporary in nature. The plot is a semi-industrial plot on which the construction has been made by the landlord and every lessee is entitled to instal a motor of 15 H.P. That the tenant has not done anything which impairs the value and utility of the building. Neither the building could be resumed on accounrt of any temporary alterations and those made by the lessee. The shed is only a temporary arrangement made by the lessee. Para 3 of the petition is incorrect and denied to the extent that the lessee respondent has caused any damage to the building. Being a semi-industrial plot and to the verbal terms of the lease, the respondent lessee has put up some machines which are permissible under the terms of the plot to the landlord."
(2.) On this premise, if the matter is proceeded with, it is clear that the allottee (respondent) will be exposed to the peril of resumption by the Chandigarh Administration by reason of clauses 16 and 17 of the terms of allotment. Those clauses are extracted below: "16. "The site and the building erected thereon shall be used only for the purpose of general for which it has been leased. 17. In the event of default, breach of noncompliance of any of the conditions of lease, the lease may be cancelled and the site resumed and the whole/part amount paid to Government, towards the premium/rent of the site may be forfeited to Government. After the cancellation of lease, it shall be the responsibility of the lessee to remove the malba/structure, if any, within such reasonable period as may be prescribed by thre Estate Officer not exceeding 3 months from the date of cacellation of lease, failing which the Estate Officer, shall be competent to remove the malba or to proceed to auction the site along with the building thereon and after deducting the market price of the site make over the proceeds of the auction to the lessee. In case of any dispute arising out of the determination of the amount to be paid to the lessee following the auction of site and building thereon, the Chief Administrator shall act as the sole arbitrator and his decision shall be final and binding on the parties."
(3.) Once we approach the matter this way, we do not think we need to get bogged down to the findings in judgments of the Courts below whether the appellant tenant had caused such acts as likely to impair material, value or utility of the building or rental land.;