CR No.2620 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.2620 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on:04. 07.2011 **** Bhupender Kumar . . . . .Petitioner Versus Uttam Chand Jagdish Lal Charity Trust (Regd.) . . . .Respondent **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.A.K. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been asked to vacate on account of causing permanent material change in the basic structure of the demised premises. In brief, the landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that the demised premises was let out to the tenant @ `1021/- per month including taxes but the tenant had illegally and unauthorisedly encroached upon an area measuring 6’3” in width and 16’3” in length by including the verandah of the demised shop after replacing the shutter from point EF to point AB as shown in the site-plan and has blocked the corridor marked by letters ABEF. In reply, the tenant had alleged that one Charanjit son of Hardayal was the tenant in the portion of the demised premises including the area marked by letters AEFB. The rent of the demised premises including shop possessed by Charanjit was `525/- per month but when Charanjit left, the possession of the shop was offered to the tenant and the rent was revised to `873/- per month by virtue of agreement dated 1.7.1996 and a shutter was affixed at point A & B even prior to letting out the shop to him. In replication, it was reiterated that the verandah CR No.2620 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - in front of the demised shop and other shops of the landlord/Trust were in the same and some tenants had also included the verandah in their shops, including the present tenant in the month of August 2006. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Landlord examined Amir Chand Teneja (PW1), Dr. Satish Khurana (PW2) and Attam Parkash (PW3) whereas the tenant had appeared himself as (RW1). The Court had also appointed a Local Commissioner, who had reported that the boundary of the demised shop has been marked with letters ABCD in the site-plan. The floor of the shop is cemented. The floor in between letters ABEF has been designed with horizontal and vertical lines but the floor between letters EFCD is broken and without any design. The floor marked with letters EFCD appears to be separate from floor marked with letters ABEF shown in the site-plan. It was also observed that there is mark/sign of bricks in the ceiling from which it appears that there might have been a wall between two pillars marked with letters G & H in the site plan. The landlord also produced his site-plan Ex.A-3 prepared by PW1 showing the extension of the shop marked by letters ABFE on an area which is left for the passers’ by in the corridor of the shopping complex. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Courts below have misread the evidence on record as PW1, who has prepared Annexure Ex.A-3 is not an Architect but a Draftsman, who has stated that he does not have any diploma or authority to tell the age of the building. He further submitted that the shutter at point A & B in the site plan Ex.A3 was there since the time of earlier tenant Charanjit as there are admittedly two shutters on the demised premises. On the contrary learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the statement of the tenant itself is sufficient to prove that he has encroached upon the area shown by letters AEFB in red colour which too was not let out to him when the tenancy was created. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The question involved in this case is short and simple as to whether the area shown in site-plan with letters AEFB in red colour was part of the tenancy. In this regard the tenant has admitted in his cross-examination that he was let out the portion shown in yellow colour in Ex.A3 which is denoted by alphabets FEDC. He has also admitted that in the site-plan Ex.A3 there is CR No.2620 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - an extended wall from point EA & FB. He also admitted that in the site-plan Ex.A-3 the pattern of the floor of portion marked by letters DCEF is different from portion marked by letters EFBA because in the portion of the floor marked by letters DCFE there are lines whereas in the portion of floor marked by letters AEFB there are no lines. He has also stated that “it is wrong that there was no verandah in AEFB”. Similarly, the Local Commissioner had also found that there was different pattern of flooring in the area shown in yellow colour and in red colour in Ex.A3 which obviously means that when the shops were constructed the flooring of the shop was constructed differently than that of the verandah otherwise had it been the portion of the same shop since beginning then the flooring would have also been the same. The Local Commissioner had also found that there are marks in the ceiling of uprooting of the wall at points E & F which shows that there happened to be a shutter at those points which have been carried forward at points A & B for the purpose of including the area of verandah in the demised premises to further extend the shop by 6’3’’ in width and 16’.3” in length. Nothing has been brought on record by the tenant that the extension has been done with the consent of the landlord rather he has been denying throughout that there has been any extension of the demised premises much less replacement of the shutter at point A & B. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am fully satisfied with the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below and have found no scope of interference therein. Resultantly the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 04.07.2011 JUDGE Vivek