Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the decision of the Appellate Authority, Patiala, dated October 11, 1974, as per which the appeal of the landlords -Petitioners against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing their application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) for the ejectment of the tenant -Respondents, was rejected.
(2.) THE case of the landlords Petitioners as highlighted in the ejectment petition is that they are the owners and landlords of House No. 44, Sector 4, Chandigarh, which was leased to Kanwar Mahinder Singh, Respondent No. 1, at a rental of Rs. 900/ - per month, after the house was vacated by the previous occupant some time in the year 1967. It is alleged that the lease was subject to certain terms and conditions enumerated in the ejectment petition. Admittedly, there was no instrument of lease nor any document evidencing the terms and conditions of the lease. It is further alleged that some time in the year 1970, the rent of the premises was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/ - per month by mutual agreement of the parties. It is claimed that tenancy in favour of Respondent No. 1 was terminated by means of a registered notice dated August 29, 1972, but the Respondents failed to vacate the premises. The eviction of the Respondent from the demised premises was claimed on three specific grounds as mentioned in the ejectment petition. For facility of reference, these grounds are reproduced verbatim as hereunder: (i) That the demised premises were let out to Respondent No. 1 for residential purposes only. He has started misusing the said premises inasmuch as, he has set up an office of the Firm Messrs Mahinder Singh and Company, in the said premises and thus he has started misusing the said premises and is trying to create a tenancy in favour of the said firm or company. Moreover, this action of Respondent No. 1 amounts to using the said premises for commercial purpose which is a clear mis -use of the premises and a flagrant breach of the terms and conditions of tenancy. (ii) That Respondent No. 1 has committed the breach of the terms and conditions of tenancy as he has made additions and alterations in the said premises without the consent or the knowledge of the Petitioners. They set up an unauthorised thatched hutment in the vacant space close to the servant quarters in the said premises and have also made certain wooden partitions etc., inside the premises. This also amounts to misuse of the said premises. (iii) That a few days back the 'Jhuggis' caught fire and the adjoining portion of the premises got ablaze to extinguish which 'fire Brigade' was summoned by a neighbor. The requisite photographs showing burnt windows lying on the spot and third window shown as charred and other unauthorised construction added in the said premises without the knowledge and consent of the Petitioners are attached with the petition. The Respondents have used the premises in such a way and have committed such acts that actually impaired materially the value and utility of the said premises and are further likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises. The sole effort of the Respondents was to destroy the evidence of the premises having caught fire. With that objective in view the Respondents did not even inform the Petitioners that the premises had actually caught fire.
(3.) WHILE contesting the ejectment petition, the stand taken on behalf of the Respondents in the written statement was that the demised premises were leased in favour of Mahinder Singh and Company, Respondent No. 2, at Rs. 900/ - per month by means of an oral arrangement and no terms and conditions, as alleged in the ejectment petition were settled between the parties. It was admitted that the rent was enhanced from Rs. 900/ - to Rs. 1,000/ - in the year, 1970. It was further averred that the Petitioners wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 1,500/ -, which was not acceptable to the Respondents. In regard to the grounds on which eviction of the Respondents had been claimed, it was contended as follows: (i) There is no misuse of the premises. The same is being used for the office of Mahinder Singh and Company, and residence also, from the very start of lease. The Petitioners have been visiting the premises regularly and have seen the office. They are now estopped from their own act and conduct from taking the ground of misuse, Previously there was office of Agro Industries Corporation, Haryana. (ii) Ground No. (ii) is absolutely incorrect and denied. There was one Jhugi for the sweeper which was raised since 1968. The Petitioners have seen this Jhugi and had never objected to it. The rest of para is incorrect and denied. (iii) Regarding sub para (iii) it is submitted that the said Jhugi caught fire on 20th April, 1973, which was an act of God. This was a minor fire and only three window frames of servants quarters, garage were affected. The damage was estimated to be less than Rs. 200/ -. The windows were replaced by the Respondents immediately. It is incorrect that the Respondents have used the premise's in such a way and have committed such acts that had impaired the value and utility of the premises.;