- (1.) The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been asked to vacate on account of causing permanent material change in the basic structure of the demised premises.
(2.) In brief, the landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') alleging that the demised premises was let out to the tenant @ Rs. 1021/- per month including taxes but the tenant had illegally and unauthorisedly encroached upon an area measuring 6'3" in width and 16'3" in length by including the verandah of the demised shop after replacing the shutter from point EF to point AB as shown in the site-plan and has blocked the corridor marked by letters ABEF. In reply, the tenant had alleged that one Charanjit son of Hardayal was the tenant in the portion of the demised premises including the area marked by letters AEFB. The rent of the demised premises including shop possessed by Charanjit was Rs. 525/- per month but when Charanjit left, the possession of the shop was offered to the tenant and the rent was revised to Rs. 873/- per month by virtue of agreement dated 1.7.1996 and a shutter was affixed at point A & B even prior to letting out the shop to him. In replication, it was reiterated that the verandah in front of the demised shop and other shops of the landlord/Trust were in the same and some tenants had also included the verandah in their shops, including the present tenant in the month of August 2006. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Landlord examined Amir Chand Teneja (PW1), Dr. Satish Khurana (PW2) and Attam Parkash (PW3) whereas the tenant had appeared himself as (RW1). The Court had also appointed a Local Commissioner, who had reported that the boundary of the demised shop has been marked with letters ABCD in the site-plan. The floor of the shop is cemented. The floor in between letters ABEF has been designed with horizontal and vertical lines but the floor between letters EFCD is broken and without any design. The floor marked with letters EFCD appears to be separate from floor marked with letters ABEF shown in the site-plan. It was also observed that there is mark/sign of bricks in the ceiling from which it appears that there might have been a wall between two pillars marked with letters G & H in the site plan. The landlord also produced his site-plan Ex.A-3 prepared by PW1 showing the extension of the shop marked by letters ABFE on an area which is left for the passers' by in the corridor of the shopping complex.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Courts below have misread the evidence on record as PW1, who has prepared Annexure Ex.A-3 is not an Architect but a Draftsman, who has stated that he does not have any diploma or authority to tell the age of the building. He further submitted that the shutter at point A & B in the site plan Ex.A3 was there since the time of earlier tenant Charanjit as there are admittedly two shutters on the demised premises.;