Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 299 (PNJ)

M. G. Dutta v. Maya Devi

2002-03-15

V.K.BALI

body2002
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the landlord, who lost his cause before both Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as the petition for eviction filed by him under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act on the grounds of non-payment of rent and carrying out material alterations in the demised premises was dismissed and so was the fate of appeal that was carried against the orders of Rent Controller. Concededly, the surviving ground is material alterations. On the issue aforesaid, learned Appellate Authority held as follows : "6. Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant next challenged the findings on issue No. 2. He vehemently contended that the tenant has reconstructed the whole of the building without the written consent of the landlord. He contended that the tenant has brought about changes and alterations in the building. As he has brought about material changes and alterations in the building without the written consent of the landlord, he is liable to be ejected on this score alone. At the appellate stage, it is not disputed before me that a major portion of the demised premises had fallen sometime in 1982. It is also not disputed that the landlord vide letter, Ex.R1, had permitted the tenant to carry out the necessary repairs regarding the demised premises. The relevant portion of Ex.R1 has been reproduced in para 17 of the lower courts order. Its reproduced at this stage also become inevitable; "It has been agreed that they will vacate the house after 3 years from today without any excuse. They had been further permitted to carry out the necessary repairs which they think best out of the rental amount due from them for the last 11 years. In my opinion, it is fair thing in the interest of all of us xxxxxx With love and affection. Yours, Sd/- MG Gupta 10.7.82 N.B. I have permitted them to carry out the repairs of dalan and also reconstruct the back wall (not in connection with Wadhawa Singh) but separately". It is undisputed that letter, Ex.R1 is in the handwriting of landlord MG Dutta. Kamal Nath Dutta, attorney of landlord frankly conceded it. A bare perusal of this letter shows that the landlord had authorised the tenant to carry out the necessary repairs which they think best. It is undisputed that letter, Ex.R1 is in the handwriting of landlord MG Dutta. Kamal Nath Dutta, attorney of landlord frankly conceded it. A bare perusal of this letter shows that the landlord had authorised the tenant to carry out the necessary repairs which they think best. It also shows that the landlord had permitted the tenant to carry out the repairs of the dalan and also to reconstruct the pucca wall which had fallen at that time. Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant tried to argue that vide this letter, landlord had permitted the tenant only to carry out the repairs. He contended that this letter does not authorise the tenant to reconstruct the whole building as has been done by him. I have given my careful consideration to this contention of Mr. Chopra. However, I am of the opinion that the same is not tenable for the following reasons :- In the case in hand, it is undisputed that back wall of the demised premises had fallen down. The roof of the Dalan had fallen down. The other building had also badly fallen down. So, in such circumstances, when the building had fallen down completely, the building could only be repaired by replacing the roofs and by reconstruction of the walls. The landlord had given permission to the tenant to carry out repairs which ever he thinks fit. So, the landlord had given the choice to the tenant to carry out such repairs which he considers necessary and best in the given circumstances and in this letter, at the end, there is a note which authorises the tenant even to reconstruct the back wall and the dalan which had fallen down. So, in such circumstances, I am of the opinion that whatever repairs in the form of reconstruction had been carried out by the tenant in respect of the demised premises, the same cannot be said to be without the written consent of the landlord. The landlord had given full authority to the tenant to repair the building as necessitated by the circumstances and the tenant considers them to be the best in the given circumstances." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by virtue of agreement between the parties, Ex.R1, tenant was permitted to carry out repairs only whereas dalan and back wall have in fact been reconstructed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by virtue of agreement between the parties, Ex.R1, tenant was permitted to carry out repairs only whereas dalan and back wall have in fact been reconstructed. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of the court to Ex.A1 and A2 which shows the position of building before and after letter Ex.R1 dated 10.7.1982 came into being. It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that there is no change insofar as building is concerned, be it Ex.A1 or Ex.A2. In other words, there is no change in rooms, verandah and other construction. In that context, reconstruction of dalan and back wall has since been consented to in writing by petitioner landlord which would be clear from Ex.R1 and a portion of which has been extracted above. There was, thus, a written consent for alterations and it can not be said that permission was only for carrying out necessary repairs. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner then contends that Ex.R1, if taken into consideration has to be so taken as a whole and that being so, there is a clear stipulation therein that respondent-tenant shall vacate the premises after three years and inasmuch as said period of three years has already expired, he should be directed to vacate the premises in dispute. I find no merit in this contention of learned counsel as, if terms of letter, Ex.R1, had to be made a ground for eviction surely, a suit for possession shall have to be filed. Concededly promise to vacate after a specified time is not a ground enumerated for eviction under Section 13 of the said Act. 4. Finding on merit in this petition, I dismiss the same leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.