CR No.4241 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4241 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 27.10.2009 **** Devi Dayal . . . . Petitioner VS. Nirmala Rani and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the landlord against the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Barnala, whereby, the action of the respondent- tenant in replacing sand/earth on the roof of demised premises and thereafter, carrying out the brick-tiling, has been held to be as per the compromise arrived at between the parties. (2). The petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent, inter alia, on the grounds of :- i. non-payment of rent; and ii. that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. (3). The eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The petitioner-landlord went in appeal, where the parties CR No.4241 of 2009 - 2 - entered into a compromise. The respondent-tenants agreed to pay the enhanced rent @ Rs.8000/- per annum. The petitioner-landlord made the following statement (relevant extracts only) on Oath in support of the compromise:- “The rent shall be paid by Ravinder Kumar within period of 10 days after it became due after every three months. I also do not have any objection if rent agreed is increased by 10% after three years. The tenant shall be liable to pay the house tax of the tenanted premises. In view of the arrival of compromise, I have no objection if brick tiles are affixed on the roof of tenanted shop along with drain pipe. Brick tiles shall be tapered with cement and for the proper discharge of water one drain pipe shall be affixed from the roof of shop till the ground floor through the assistance of Local Commissioner to be appointed by the Court and his fee shall be borne by tenant. The tenancy at the enhanced rate shall be put into effect from 1st November, 2008 and respondent shall pay the arrears of maintenance, if any prior to period of 1st November, 2008.” (Emphasis supplied) (4). In terms of the compromise referred to above, the respondent-tenants have affixed the brick-tiles on the roof of the tenanted shop. However, before doing so they have also removed the old sand/earth from the roof and refilled the same with fresh sand and have then affixed the brick- tiles with cement. CR No.4241 of 2009 - 3 - (5). Accordingly to the petitioner-landlord, the compromise had permitted the respondents only to the extent of brick-tiling and not for removal of the sand. This objection has been turned down by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order. (6). After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and keeping in view the spirit and object of the compromise between the parties, namely, repair of the roof of the shop in dispute, I am of the considered view that no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, Barnala. It is a matter of common knowledge that a layer of sand/earth is provided underneath the brick-tiling to ensure that there is no seepage and to protect the premises from extreme weather conditions especially for the summer seasons. The replacement of the existing sand over the roof by the respondent-tenants has caused no prejudice to the petitioner. (7). No ground for interference with the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Barnala is made out. (8). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 27.10.2009 vishal shonkar