VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE tenant petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller Bathinda and the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Bathinda ordering eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act). The respondent landlord filed rent application which was decided by Ms. Manjot Kaur, learned Rent Controller Bathinda. An appeal was preferred which was disposed of on 5.10.2004 by setting aside the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller with a direction to decide the case afresh in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhwan v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 : 2002(2) Rent Law Reporter 36.
(2.) IN pursuance to the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority provisional assessment of the rent was made on 27.8.2005 and the petitioner tenant tendered the rent on 16.9.2005 in pursuance to the provisional order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Respondent landlord sought ejectment of the petitioner therein on the plea that he was owner of the shop forming part of Building No. 2087 Mall Road Bathinda. Demised shop was given on lease to the respondent through rent note dated 1.4.1995. Rent note was executed by the petitioner tenant in the presence marginal witnesses. Agreed rate of rent, was Rs. 1000/- per month. Lease was for a period of 11 months. It was also the claim of the landlord that the house tax of the shop was to be paid by the tenant over and above the agreed rent. The landlord further claimed that it was agreed between the parties that if the demised shop was occupied after expiry of lease period the rate of rent would be increased by 10 per cant every year. The tenant paid rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1986 and at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per month from 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987. It was claimed that the tenant has not paid any rent and house tax thereafter as per the terms of the rent note. Eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant failed to pay the rent and house-tax of the demised shop from 1.4.1987.
(3.) THE second ground on which eviction was sought was that tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the shop by constructing two concreet slabs in the back wall by making Khuddas and inserting steel rods. It was claimed that he has put heavy weight on the wall which may collapse after some goods are put on the shelves. It was also claimed that the tenant has recently raised construction of the height of 1'3" on the wall with adjoining brick steps about 4' behind the main gate. It was claimed that proper passage was obstructed and thus, the value and utility of the shop was materially affected.;