RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) THE tenant is in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority by which he has been asked to vacate the demised premises within two months from the date of order.
(2.) IN brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act) for seeking eviction of the tenant alleging that he was inducted as a tenant in shop bearing No.20/99/7, Gohana Road, Rohtak having an area of 12.6 x 16.6 marked by letters ABCD on a monthly rent of Rs.175/ -. The tenant had approached the landlord for raising the level of the floor of the shop to avoid inconvenience and loss caused by rainy water which used to enter the shop but in the garb of limited permission granted by the landlord, he demolished the whole shop and joined an additional areas measuring 12.6 x 8.9 and had also encroached upon the other land of Dayanand Math. Hence, the tenant had made structural alteration in the shop causing loss of value and utility of the demised premises without the permission of the landlord and had also raised some unauthorized construction of store, kitchen and bathroom. In reply, the tenancy was admitted but the measurement of the area was denied. It was alleged that the whole area shown by letters ABCDEF including the staircase situated on the southern side of the toilet, kitchen and store was in his tenancy and as the demised premises was in a dilapidated condition the landlord allowed him to raise construction which was in its benefit and the construction has been raised after due permission.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, as many as six issues were framed. The landlord examined Maman Singh Saini as PW1 and appeared himself as PW2 whereas the tenant appeared himself as RW1 and examined Mahender Singh as RW2 and Joginder Singh as RW3 and tendered documents in support of their claim. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition observing that the landlord had alleged that it had granted permission to the tenant to raise the level of the floor but the said permission was not placed on record and the alleged agreement for alteration was not proved by the landlord. It was thus, held that it was the landlord, who had to prove its case and it cannot take advantage of the weakness of the case of the tenant. The learned Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Rent Controller in view of the fact that RW2 Mahender Singh had admitted that earlier the length and breath of the shop was 12.6 x 16.6 whereas the construction is proved to have been raised to the extent of 12.6 x 25.3. It was also admitted by him that only the shop was under the tenancy whereas the tenant had constructed a store, kitchen and bathroom on the part of back side of the shop. Thus, a considered finding has been recorded that not only the tenant had demolished the shop in the garb of repair but had also extended the area of the shop by raising further construction of store, kitchen and bathroom. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of the learned Appellate Authority has submitted that the case set up by the landlord is that it had granted permission to the tenant to raise only the level of the floor but in the absence of written permission brought on record it has rightly been presumed by the learned Rent Controller that the entire construction has been raised by the tenant with the permission of the landlord.;