Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1016 (PNJ)

Jawahar Lal v. Bal Krishan (Died) Through Lrs.

2004-09-08

N.K.SUD

body2004
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jind, dated 7.6.1985 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-landlord against the order of the Rent Controller, Narwana, dated 19.8.1983. 2. Petitioner-Jawahar Lal, landlord, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against his tenant-Bal Kishan for ejectment from the shop situated at Narwana on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent besides the House Tax and also on the ground that respondent had materially implied the value and utility of the premises by making additions and alterations in the demised premises. 3. According to the landlord, the shop had been let out at an annual rent of Rs. 6,000/-. The tenant in addition to the rent was also liable to pay House Tax. It was claimed that the tenant had failed to pay the House Tax which he had agreed to pay as per the Rent Note and had also not paid the rent from 1.4.1981 to 30.9.1981. It was, therefore, claimed that, being in arrears of rent, the tenant was liable for eviction. As regards material alternations, it was alleged that the respondent had made two big holes in the walls causing damage to the property and had also covered the verandah of the shop and fixed a shutter and had thereby included the verandah in the shop. 4. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, both the authorities held that the shop had been let out at an annual rent of Rs. 6,000/- and the liability to pay tax rested on the landlord. For this purpose, they referred to the rent note which provided that "Tax Ba-zimma Malak Dukan Hoga". This clearly showed that the tax liability was on the landlord. 5. As regards the charge of material alteration, both the authorities rejected the claim of the landlord as he had failed to show as to when the alleged material alterations had been carried out. It was observed that the premises had been let out to the tenant with effect from 1.4.1977. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the landlord to allege and prove that the alterations had been made after that date. It was observed that the premises had been let out to the tenant with effect from 1.4.1977. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the landlord to allege and prove that the alterations had been made after that date. The authorities have also taken into account the fact that in the adjacent shop belonging to the same landlord, similar additions and alterations had also been made. It has also been noticed that the landlord resided in the same premises and, therefore, could not be unaware of the date on which the alterations had been made. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of fact. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any material on record to show that these findings were perverse in any manner. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Authority warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, the petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. No costs.