- (1.) The tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed is the revision petitioner before this Court. The contention of the petitioner is that his father Pritam Singh was the tenant in the demised premises at monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. After his death, he continued as a tenant but at a higher rate of rent at Rs. 300/- per month. This was further increased to Rs. 450/- per month from 01.08.1990.
(2.) The respondents filed a petition for eviction alleging that the petitioner had effected additions and alterations without concurrence of the landlord that materially altered the value and utility of the building, a ground available under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act for eviction. The Rent Control originally dismissed the petition. The Appellate Court on appeal by the landlord, however, reversed the decision and ordered the ejectment and hence the revision.
(3.) The grounds of material alterations have been set out in the petition where the tenant had converted the verandah/chabutra without concurrence of the landlord. The contention of the tenant, however, was that the landlord himself carried out some alterations to justify the increase of the rent from Rs. 350/- p.m. to Rs. 450/- p.m. The fact that the rent was increased to Rs. 450/- p.m. itself was an important circumstance to show that the changes were affected by the landlord himself for increasing the rent. The manner in which the property was put to use after it was originally let would give an idea of whether the changes had been made by the tenant or the landlord.;