Civil Revision No. 4505 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4505 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.8.2010 Mohinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Shiv Mandir, Ambala City and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a son of Tarlok Singh, who was inducted as a tenant by respondent No.1-Shiv Mandir, Ambala City, which had filed an eviction petition through its Mohatamim, on various grounds. The primary ground which found favour with the Courts below was that the petitioner/tenant has constructed permanent structure on the rented property against the specific prohibition in the rent note Ex.P1, to the detriment of the landlord. It was stated in the eviction petition that w.e.f. 11.11.1982, the demised premises was rented out to Tarlok Sigh, father of the petitioner, at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. It was specifically stated in the rent note Ex.P1 that the tenant would run the business of Hay Tokka and Milk Dairy and no other business would be carried out. The tenant was only permitted to raise temporary shed and structure on the vacant land. It was also stated in the rent note that the tenant would not be permitted to change use of the property and he would not run any other business except milk dairy. Probably, this was done by the Mandir to look after the Civil Revision No. 4505 of 2010 2 cows as the rent note specifically stated that the tenant would not be permitted to do anything related to liquor and meat. The tenant denied all the averments made and stated that no permanent structure has been built. The Rent Controller, Ambala City, had drawn the following issues:- “1. Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent? OPP 2. Whether the tender made in the Court is short and invalid? OPP 3. Whether the respondents have impaired the value and utility of the rented land? OPP 4. Whether the respondents have changed the user of rented land? OPP 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 6. Whether the respondents are a permanent tenant? If so, to what effect? OPR 7. Relief”. Five witnesses were examined by respondent No.1. The petitioner also denied rent note Ex.P1 along with other two documents. The petitioner appeared as respondent's witness No.1. The Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the tenant had not only impaired the value and utility of the land but had also changed the use thereof. Arriving at this conclusion, the Rent Controller relied upon the testimony of petitioner/tenant who stated that in the year 1983 the construction Civil Revision No. 4505 of 2010 3 was raised and six shops were built. The shops were made of bricks having plastered with cement. Roofs were of girders and karris having projection of 2½ feet. It was further admitted by the petitioner that shop No.1 was having a business of Auto Paints and shop No.2 was having Auto Parts Repair. The tenant further admitted that all the six shops were having iron shutters. On the basis of the above evidence, the Rent Controller concluded that the construction of six shops and a hall is contrary to the rent note Ex.P1 which only permitted the tenant to make a temporary shed. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, vide order dated 23.12.2009. Mr. Sullar, appearing for the petitioner/tenant, has read the rent note Ex.P1 and submitted that the line regarding change of user was not incorporated, at the first instance, but subsequently the same was added. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail that part of the rent note Ex.P1 wherein it was stated that no permanent structure would be built by the tenant. Execution of the rent note (Annexure P1) was also upheld by both the Courts below. Hence, the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by both the Courts below, cannot be set set aside by the Revisional Court. Thus, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 9, 2010 “DK”