CR No.6806 of 2009 (O&M).doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** (1) CR No.6806 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2009 **** Kamal Oberoi . . . . Petitioner VS. Ambala Khadi Ashram & another . . . . Respondents **** (2) CR No.6808 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2009 **** Kamal Oberoi . . . . Petitioner VS. Sargoha Electrical Store . . . . Respondents **** (3) CR No.6809 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2009 **** Kamal Oberoi . . . . Petitioner VS. Sargoha Electrical Store . . . . Respondents **** (4) CR No.6810 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2009 **** Kamal Oberoi . . . . Petitioner VS. D.K. Electrical Store . . . . Respondents **** (5) CR No.6811 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2009 **** Kamal Oberoi . . . . Petitioner VS. Modern Electrical Works . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner ***** CR No.6806 of 2009 (O&M).doc - 2 - SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) CM No.24932-CII of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, supported by an affidavit of the husband of the petitioner-landlady, the delay of 34 days in filing the Revision Petition is hereby condoned subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CM No.24933-CII of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application duly supported with an affidavit, the delay of 128 days in re-filing of the Revision Petition is hereby condoned. CM stands disposed of. CR No.6806 of 2008 This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.6806 6808, 6809, 6810 & 6811 of 2008 which have been preferred by the petitioner-landlady against five different tenants, challenging the orders of Rent Controller, Jagadhari whereby her eviction applications on the ground that these tenants have impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing a loft of height of 7/8 feet from the floor level and by constructing a stair case inside the shops, has been dismissed and whose appeals against those orders, have also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Jagadhari. The petitioner is owner of the building comprising of more than 5 shops situated at Railway Road, Yamuna Nagar. She has let out these shops to different tenants including the respondent(s). The petitioner-landlady sought ejectment of the respondents, inter alia, alleging that :- (i) the tenants are in arrears of rent; (ii) they have impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing a stair-case inside the shop upto the CR No.6806 of 2009 (O&M).doc - 3 - loft, installed at the height of 7/8 feet from the floor level and also by constructing a loft with concrete iron and cement at the height of 7/8 feet from the floor level without the consent of the petitioner-landlady. The respondents, upon notice, contested the eviction petition and denied the construction of any loft by them inside the shops. They took a specific plea that the lofts had already been constructed by the landlady prior to letting out the shops to them. The allegations regarding construction of any stair-case were also denied. The arrears of rent were tendered and as such the first ground of eviction was no longer available to the petitioner-landlady. The parties went on trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent, as alleged? OPA 2. Whether the respondents have changed the nature of building without taking the consent of the petitioner? OPA 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the petition by her own act and conduct? OPR 5. Relief. The real issue that arose before the Rent Controller was as to whether the lofts and stair cases inside the shops were constructed by the tenants or were in existence at the time when the demised premises were let out? Secondly, if the lofts and stair cases were constructed by the tenants, have they impaired the value and utility of the demised premises? The Rent Controller, on a fair consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that there is no evidence whatsoever that the lofts were constructed by the tenants. According to the Rent Controller, all the five tenants would not have completely vacated the shop by taking out their goods and then CR No.6806 of 2009 (O&M).doc - 4 - raise the construction inside their respective shops. The Rent Controller further found that none of the load bearing wall has been touched which further suggests that no fresh construction has been raised inside the shops after the same were let out to the tenants. No site plan was got prepared by the landlady at the time of the construction of the shops or when the same were let out. No Municipal record has been brought on record to prove any sanctioned plan for construction of the shops. The bald statement made by the petitioner-landlady or the reports submitted by Sushil Kumar, Draftsman (PW2) have not been rightly relied upon to hold that the lofts or the stair-case inside the shops were constructed by the tenants. The Rent Controller, accordingly, dismissed the Eviction Petition. The petitioner preferred appeals against those orders which have also met with the same fate. Still aggrieved, the petitioner-landlady has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and records perused. There is indeed no denial to the fact that except the petitioner on affidavit in examination-in-chief (Exhibit PW2/1) and the report of the Draftsman Sushil Kumar (PW2), there is no expert evidence or site plan etc. brought on record by the petitioner to establish as to what was the design/plan of the shops at the time of construction or when let out to the tenants and/or what are the changes that have been subsequently effected by the tenants unauthorisedly. In the absence of any such evidence, the courts below have rightly observed that it was not possible for the tenants to close their business; take out the goods outside and then raise construction inside the shops. The plea taken by the tenants that the lofts/stair-case were already in existence at the time of letting out the shops appears to be more plausible. CR No.6806 of 2009 (O&M).doc - 5 - In this view of the matter, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its revision jurisdiction. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 25.08.2009 shonkar