Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1248 (PNJ)

Harjit Kaur v. Sant Ram

2002-11-20

HEMANT GUPTA

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The present revision petition is by the landlord challenging the order passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 dismissing the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the said Act on the ground of material impairment of the value and utility of the building. 2. The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises is that the petitioners are owners of the vacant land measuring 40 x 50, which was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.10/-, which was increased to Rs.35/- per month later on. The petitioners have sought the ejectment of the respondent, inter-alia, on the ground that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the building on account of the constructions made by him. The respondent appeared and stated in the written statement that the land was taken on rent for running a saw mill and he has raised only temporary construction for the proper use of the area. However, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment holding that the constructions raised by the tenant have materially impaired the value and utility of the building, whereas the appellate authority reversed such finding holding that the constructions have been made by the tenant for the installation of electric meter in order to run the saw mill and that the shed and the wall are constructed of temporary nature. It was found that such temporary construction does not impair the value and utility of the building. 3. In the present petition, the petitioners submitted that it was a vacant land which was given on rent for business purposes, but the tenant has constructed boundary wall, sheds and a room, which have materially impaired the value and utility of the building. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Narain Singh v. Bakon Laboratories etc.,1 1981 C.L.J. (Civil) 414, wherein, permanent conversion of a varanda to a room and installation of a door by a tenant were found to be an act of materially impairing the value and utility of the building. Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon a decision in Civil Revision No.1048 of 1990 titled Shivala Damoar Dass v. Shankar Dass and Anr. Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon a decision in Civil Revision No.1048 of 1990 titled Shivala Damoar Dass v. Shankar Dass and Anr. (2003-1) P.L.R. 222 decided on 11.10.02 by this Court to contend that the construction on a vacant land itself is proof of materially impairment of the value and utility of the building. 4. After going through the records of the case, I do not find that the finding recorded by the appellate authority suffers from any material illegality or irregularity. 5. The nature of construction has been sought to be proved by AW2 Dewan Chand, Photographer from the photographs A6 to All as well as by producing AW6 Chaman Lal. A perusal of the photographs shows that the construction raised is purely temporary having tin-sheds. Such construction is only for proper running of business of saw-mill. There is no evidence that such construction is embedded in earth to such an extent which will make its removal difficult or such construction has damaged the surface of the land to such an extent that it cannot be restored to its original position. Such temporary construction is for proper utilisation of the land and has been rightly found by the appellate authority as not causing material impairment of the value and utility of the building. In Narain Singhs case (supra), the Court was considering conversion, of a veranda into a room. Admittedly, in the present case, there was no construction but some temporary constructions have been raised, which are not embedded in earth, so as to render the surface of earth impossible for future use. Therefore, the reliance on the said judgment is mis-conceived. In Shivala Damodar Dasss case the construction was of permanent nature and, thus, was found to impair the value and utility of the building. Purely temporary construction raised by the tenant for the use of the land does not furnish a ground of ejectment to the landlord. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present revision petition is dismissed with no other as to costs.