Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 700 (PNJ)

Ramjas Mal v. Jugal Kishore

2003-05-14

J.S.NARANG

body2003
Judgment J.S.Narang, J. 1. This judgment would dispose of Civil Revision No. 1229 of 1985 and Civil Revision No. 1825 of 1985 as in both the petitions, the common judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority has been made subject matter of challenge. 2. The brief facts are that the landlord rented out the demised premises to Chiranji Lal father of Ramjas Mal, the principal tenant at a monthly tenancy of Rs. 25/ - P.M. and after the death of his father, he continued as a tenant. Initially, the tenancy was created for a period of one year, but after the expiry of the said period. The tenant became a statutory tenant. The application for eviction has been filed on three grounds: 1. The tenant is in arrears of rent since 31 .5.1972. 2. The tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the shop in question by making material changes, as such, has become liable to be evicted on the said ground. 3. The portion of the shop has been sub-let to the sub-tenant, i.e., Arjan Lal son of inder Lal. 3. The Rent Controller has returned findings in respect of the aforesaid pleas against the landlord and resultantly, the application for eviction has been dismissed vide order dated 18.10.1983. Against the said judgment, an appeal had been filed before the Appellate Authority. It has been found, as a matter of act by the Appellate Authority that the demised premises had been let out by Ramjas Mal to Arjan Lal prior to 1970 and that, in this regard, the statement of Arjan Lal has been referred to wherein he has categorically stated that the shop came into his possession prior to 1970 and he has categorically denied as to when the partnership deed had been executed. However, the deed of partnership has been produced as Ex.RW2/l. perusal of the same shows that the partnership commenced with effect from 1.4.1970. Further, reliance has been placed upon documents relating to the assessment year by the Income Tax Authorities pertaining to the financial Year 1971-72 Ex.D-12 which relates to the income tax year 1970-71. Thus. primarily, it is indicated that the partnership came into existence only in April. 1970, which fact stands corroborated from the partnership deed as afore-stated. On these prem-ises. the Appellate Authority has returned a finding to the effect that sub-letting stands proved. Resultantly. Thus. primarily, it is indicated that the partnership came into existence only in April. 1970, which fact stands corroborated from the partnership deed as afore-stated. On these prem-ises. the Appellate Authority has returned a finding to the effect that sub-letting stands proved. Resultantly. the eviction has been ordered upon the said ground. 4. So far as material impairment is concerned, the plea did not find favour with the Appellate Authority and it has been categorically observed that it is not discernible from the evidence as to who had made such changes, whether the tenant had carried out these changes or the landlord himself had carried out the said changes. In this regard, reference has been made to the statement of Ramjas Mal, RW2 wherein, he has tried to prove that changes were made after the tenancy had been created. In this regard, the other evidence has also been referred to the effect whether the existence of Chabutra has been proved. However, the demolition of the same has also not been established by a cogent piece of evidence. The Appellate Authority ordered the eviction of the tenant vide judgment dated 4.3.1985. 5. The landlord and the tenant both felt dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and they have filed separate Civil Revisions. The landlord has challenged the findings in respect of material impairment and the tenant has challenged the factum of sub-letting, held against him. 6. Learned counsel for the tenant has argued that intact the Appellate Authority has fallen into error in ignoring the documents such as the assessment order and the partnership deed and so also statement of the tenant. The assessment order and so also the partnership deed would show that the partnership came into existence on 1.4.1970 and that there was no sub-letting in favour of the tenant. It may be noticed here that in the cross-examination, the tenant had categorically admitted that he had come into possession of the demised premises prior to 1970, resultantly, the plea that partnership had been created on 1.4.1970 and he had come into possession of the demised premises on the said ate, is of no consequence. In view of the clear facts having been brought on record and the same having been examined by the appellate Authority in the right perspective, I do not find that any ground has been made out for interfering in the finding of the Appellate Authority. In view of the clear facts having been brought on record and the same having been examined by the appellate Authority in the right perspective, I do not find that any ground has been made out for interfering in the finding of the Appellate Authority. Resultantly, the petition filed by the tenant is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. So far as material impairment is concerned, there is no evidence which has been brought on record that at what time the Chabutra was demolished and Tin Shed, which is alleged to have come into existence, had also been demolished and the area has been added into the shop. No doubt, Ramjas Mal has said that Chabutra was in existence earlier but he had not been able to spell out that Chabutra was demolished and so also the Tin Shed and that the Appellate Authority has come to a conclusion that any material impairment has been caused to the demised premises. Resultantly, the petition filed by the landlord is also dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. The cumulative effect is, that the order of the Appellate Authority dated 4.3.1985 is affirmed.