Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 831 (PNJ)

Harbans Singh v. Krishna Wanti

2003-05-28

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the appellate authority on the ground that the tenant has committed acts and material impairment which have diminished the value of the demised premises. 2. Krishna Wanti has sought the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that the premises in dispute were purchased by late Som Nath Chadha her father-in-law benami in the name of his son Vas Dev Chadha. Som Nath Chadha filed a suit and got a decree of declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the said property and that he had purchased the same benami in the name of Vas Dev Chadha. By virtue of the said decree, Som Nath Chadha became the owner and landlord of the demised premises and, thus, received rent from Gian Singh and Mann Singh deceased. Earlier, vide rent note dated 21.12.1953. Gian Singh and Maan Singh had taken on rent the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month from Vas Dev Chadha. By virtue of the Will executed by Som Nath Chadha on 31.10.1978, Smt. Krishna Wanti became the owner and landlady in respect of demised premises and, thus, sought the ejectment of the petitioners and Gian Singh, inter alia, on the ground that the tenants have made material alterations in the demised premises. 3. The present petitioners appeared before the Rent Controller and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was their stand that infact, they are the owners of the premises having purchased the same from the Rehabilitation Department. 4. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the premises in dispute are owned by Smt. Krishna Wanti and that the tenants have made alterations which have impaired the value and utility of the building. Vide rent note dated 21.12.1953, Ex. A1, both Gian Singh and Maan Singh have taken the premises on rent from Vas Dev Chadha. Subsequently, Vas Dev Chadha has suffered a decree in favour of Som Nath Chadha to the effect that Som Nath Chadha is the real owner. After the death of Som Nath Chadha, Smt. Krishna Wanti has become the owner by virtue of Will dated 31.12.1978. Subsequently, Vas Dev Chadha has suffered a decree in favour of Som Nath Chadha to the effect that Som Nath Chadha is the real owner. After the death of Som Nath Chadha, Smt. Krishna Wanti has become the owner by virtue of Will dated 31.12.1978. Therefore, there is no illegality in the findings recorded by both the Courts below that Maan Singh, since deceased and Gian Singh were inducted as tenants and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 5. The argument of the petitioners that they are the owners of the demised premises having purchased the same from the Rehabilitation Department is wholly devoid of merit. Once they have taken the demised premises on rent from Vas Dev Chadha and were inducted as tenants, it is not open to the petitioners to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioners have not produced any document on record to show that they have purchased the demised premises from the Rehabilitation Department. Oral evidence is not sufficient to prove that they are the purchasers. In this view of the matter, there is no illegality in respect of the finding recorded regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 6. Regarding the material impairment, it was the stand of the petitioners that alterations have been made by the petitioners as the owner and, thus, it was denied that Smt. Krishna Wanti has any right to seek ejectment. It has been the case of the landlady that the tenants have demolished one of the shops and constructed 2 rooms, verandah and stair case. The nature of construction and the stand show that the tenants have made material alterations so as to impair the value and utility of the building and, thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.