- (1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The petition for eviction had been ordered with reference to a non-residential building namely the shops in question on the grounds: (i) of default in payment of rent; (ii) change of user of the building and (iii) material alterations in respect of building that has caused impairement in value and utility. The admitted case was that the tenant obtained the property on a rent note dated 19.07.1986 for Rs. 450/- per month. The rent note was with respect to buildings at door Nos.10 and 11. The landlord contended that the respondent had failed to pay the rent w.e.f March, 1990 till the date of filing of the petition, that is, for a period of 7 months aggregating the arrears to be Rs. 3150/- plus house tax. The plea of change of user of the building was rested on a contention that the property was let out for establishing a halwai shop, karyana and general merchants but the respondent had changed the user of the building by storing and selling cement without the written consent of the landlord. There had been an extensive addition or alteration of building that consisted of constructing a wall between the two door numbers and raising a permanent structure, that is, upto the front of the shop so as to materially impair the value and utility. The landlord has also brought about an application indicating the nature of property as existed at the time of original letting and the manner of alterations that had been made by the tenant at the time when the petition had been filed. The rough sketch filed along with the petition would reveal that verandah, which was attached to shop No.11 on the south of about 6' width was later converted into a room by raising a wall on the eastern side. A partition wall had been raised at CD in portion of the property in Shop No.11 and one more partition wall had been raised with a door of about 3' width between door No.10 and door No.11. A chabutra that allowed for 6' wide projection had been enclosed by a bhatti adjoining Shop No.10 on its north.
(2.) There was no dispute with reference to the arrears of rent since the same had been tendered in the course of proceedings and therefore, the case was taken up for consideration only with reference to the other two remaining grounds. The Rent Controller found as a matter of fact that out of the two buildings in question, one building had been constructed only in the year 1983-84 admittedly and when the petition was filed on 17.07.1990, one of the buildings namely Shop No.11 was a new building to which the provisions of the Act under Section 1(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Haryana Act) itself was not attracted. Consequently, the Rent Controller had directed eviction only with reference to Shop No.10 since he found that the fact that there had been an alteration in original of the building was not in dispute. The tenant admitted all these alterations but it was contended that they were intended to enhance the value and utility and there were such alterations, which were temporary and possible of restoration to the building's original condition at the time when the property was to be delivered back to the landlord. The Rent Controller had also found that the tenant had again not denied the nature of change of user of property by bringing the property for sale of cement and the said ground of change of user had also been established.
(3.) The appeals had been filed by both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord was contending that the eviction must have been with reference to both the buildings namely Door No.10 and 11 while the tenant was contending that even the order of eviction that was made with reference to one of the shops was wrong since the act complained of did not constitute actionable grounds for eviction.;