TEJA SINGH Vs. ARJAN DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 16.8.1991, passed by the Appellate Authority, Ropar and along with this revision the tenant has also given challenge to the order of the same date passed by the appellate authority which dismissed the appeal of the appellant under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for leading the additional evidence.

(2.) The facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Arjan Dev son of Shri Babu Ram Sharma, filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against Shri Teja Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, seeking ejectment of the tenant from one house fully described in the head note of the petition situated at Mohalla Phool Chakkar, Ropar and case set up by the landlord was that Shri Teja Singh, original tenant, was let out the premises in dispute on monthly rent of Rs. 80/- vide rent note dated 13.9.1984 for residential purposes. The tenancy was for a period of 11 months. However, after the expiry of the fixed period, respondent-tenancy continued to remain in its possession. His ejectment was sought on the ground of nonpayment of rent from 1.7.1988 till the date of the filing of the petition; that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; that respondent had materially impaired the value and utility of the property by making alteration etc. and that tenants has changed the user of the premises from residential to commercial. While elaboration as to how the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, it was averred by the landlord that the house was quite old one and was in dilapidated condition. The walls had left the points and it developed serious cracks. The roof of the portion CDEF as shown in the red colour in the site plan attached with the petition, had fallen in the last week of June, 1988 and the remaining portion shown in blue colour was likely to fall at any time. A civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by the landlord against the tenant from making any construction or alterations as he may not take undue advantage. A Local Commissioner was also got appointed. Anyhow, the tenant came to know about the injunction and he made some alterations without the consent of the landlord but inspite of the alterations, demised premises remained unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondent. He admitted the tenancy and also the execution of the rent note. However, he added that he had been running a commercial business of cutting grass on charges and sale of green fodder for the last 20/25 years, denying if the premises was given for residential purposes and also if it was ever used for that purpose. According to the tenant the premises consisted of one room and Chhan and he had been doing this business from the date of taking the premises. So much so he got an electric meter installed about 9 years back and the Chhan was laid 15 years back. For few months, the respondent started a tea-stall but again he resorted to his earlier profession of cutting grass. Respondent denied if the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. According to him, there was some vacant portion towards the southern side of the rented property and the landlord constructed a shop there forcibly in the absence of the respondent about 5/6 months back for which he showed his intention to take separate civil and criminal action. The tenant stated that the rented premises do not suffer from any defect. There is no danger or risk to his life and property. On the request of the landlord he replaced some rotten balas of the hind portion of the roof of the room and also over-turned the Sarkandas of the roof without changing the structure of the roof. It was also stated by the tenant that Chhan was old one. Respondent also denied the allegations of the landlord that he made any material alteration etc. in the demised premises. According to him, the premises in question were never meant for residential purposes. It was for commercial purposes and the same purpose is being carried out by him.