C.R. No.640 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.640 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.3.2008 Satwant Kaur and others .....Petitioners Vs. Kulbir Singh ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioners impugn orders dated 2.11.2004 and 3.1.2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, ordering the petitioners ejectment and dismissing their appeal respectively. The respondent, filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from Booth No.1122-D, Sector 22-B,Chandigarh, on the plea that the petitioner is in arrears of rent from 1.7.1996 and has effected such permanent material alterations and additions in the premises, as had impaired the value and utility of the building. The petitioner denied the allegations, whereupon the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent, material alteration ? OPP. C.R. No.640 of 2008 2 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPR. 3. Relief.” The learned Rent Controller found, as a matter of fact that the petitioner had effected material alterations in the tenanted premises, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the building and, therefore, directed the petitioner's ejectment. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Rent Controller was also dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the original tenant. The orders passed by the Courts below are illegal and void and should, therefore, be set aside. The respondent-landlord has failed to produce any evidence, as to the date, month or year, when the original tenant made the alleged additions and alterations. As the landlord's plea is not supported by cogent evidence, the learned Courts below erred in passing the impugned orders. It is further submitted that even if the existence of additions and alterations is accepted, the landlord failed to establish that these additions and alterations impaired the value and utility of the building. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act, praying for the petitioner's ejectment from Booth No. 1122-D, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, on the grounds of non payment of rent @ Rs.6000/- p.m. with effect from 1.7.1996 and that the petitioner had made such permanent material additions and alterations in the premises, as had impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The petitioner had C.R. No.640 of 2008 3 dismantled the floor and reduced its level. He had removed a common wall between Booth No.1122-D and 1122-C so as to open an additional door. The Chandigarh Administration initiated proceedings under the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act for resumption of the premises, on the ground of six substantial violations and resumed the building. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. The matter is pending adjudication before the High Court in CWP No.3356 of 1994. Upon notice, the petitioner filed a written statement, denying the aforementioned assertions and pleaded that the petition was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 11 of the CPC. It was further asserted that the building was in the same condition, as on the date, it was rented out to the petitioner. It was denied that the petitioner was in arrears of rent or had made any additions and alterations in the tenanted premises. The respondent stepped into the witness box and reiterated the contents of the petition. The learned Rent Controller appointed a Local Commissioner, to inspect the premises. The report Ex.P-1, supports the landlord's factual assertions. The additions and alterations in the tenanted premises are as follows :- “1.Common wall between Dhaba still existing site No. 1122-D and 1122-C removed. 2. Additional door has been opened from the site still existing. 3. Floor of the dhaba has been depressed upto feet. 4. Mazanine floor has been made in the shop. 5. Stair provided by removing the half portion of the common wall between Dhaba site and booth No.1122-C to Mazanine floor. C.R. No.640 of 2008 4 6. Temporary shed has been constructed above Dhaba site.” In view of these material additions and alterations and the fact that the premises were resumed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, for failure to remove these building violations, the learned Rent Controller, accepted the plea for ejectment. The Appellate Court, thereafter, dismissed the appeal by holding that the landlord has successfully established, by cogent evidence, that the tenant had effected additions and alterations, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The impugned orders do not suffer from any error of fact, law or of jurisdiction, as would warrant interference. The petitioner admits the existence of the additions and alterations i.e. building violations. His assertion in defence that the additions and alterations were carried out by the landlord and were in existence on the date he entered the premises as a tenant, remain unsubstantiated and disregard the fact that the petitioner was in sole and exclusive possession of the demised premises since the inception of his tenancy. It, therefore, fell to the petitioner to explain by producing satisfactory evidence that the additions were made by the landlord or with his permission. No evidence, whatsoever, is forthcoming except for a lame plea that the premises exist in the state, they were leased out to the petitioner. The additions and alterations have led the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, to order resumption of plot/building, thus, jeopardising the very title of the landlord. While considering a similar controversy, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durga Seed Farm V. Raj Kumari Chadha, AIR 1995 S.C. 1160 that where a tenant raises construction, without the C.R. No.640 of 2008 5 landlord's permission and exposes the landlord's property to the peril of resumption, he would be guilty of such conduct, as would materially impair the value and utility of the building. In view of what has been stated herein above, it is apparent that the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below do not suffer from any error and consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. 4.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE