Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 641 (DEL)

SHAKUNTALA DEVI v. AVTAR SINGH

2004-08-18

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. Sodhi, J. ( 1 ). SAO 171/1988 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31. 8. 1988 of the Rent Control Tribunal (for short tribunal ) in R. C. A. No. 40/86 whereby the learned Tribunal reversed the judgment of the additional Rent Controller dated 17. 12. 1985, who, while adjudicating upon a petition under Section 14 (l) (j) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (for short the act ), directed the tenant-respondent herein to remove the parchhati within one month failing which the eviction order under Section 14 (l) (j) of the Act would become effective. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal, are as follows : "on 22nd February, 1980, the respondent, Shakuntala Devi, filed petition for eviction of her tenant, Avtar Singh, from property No. 142-D, Kamla Nagar under clause (a), (c) and (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act on the allegation that the premises were let out to the appellant on 1. 6. 1955 under an agreement dated 30th May, 1955 at the rate of Rs. 50. 59 p. m. which has not been paid since 1. 10. 1977 despite service of the demand notice dated 15. 5. 1978; that the premises were let for residential purposes but the appellant is misusing them for commercial purpose which misuser has not stopped despite notice and he is causing nuisance by storing goods in the courtyard which is used for common passage; that he has also caused substantial damage to the premises by constructing one parchhati inside the one room of the tenancy premises without her permission and that the parchhati has been built in whole length and breadth of the room and has caused damage to the room by big holes made for it and the ground floor of the building has become week and the parchhati being used for storing goods and sleeping purposes causes damage to the property which may fall down at any time. " ( 3 ) IT was contended by counsel for the appellant that a parchhati has been erected by the tenant-respondent for creating additional accommodation equivalent to the room below by puncturing walls, placing girdles in them, covering it with wood and plywood flooring and converting the same into a separate room. " ( 3 ) IT was contended by counsel for the appellant that a parchhati has been erected by the tenant-respondent for creating additional accommodation equivalent to the room below by puncturing walls, placing girdles in them, covering it with wood and plywood flooring and converting the same into a separate room. He submitted that the very fact that a parchhati/mezzanine floor has been created, causes substantial damage to the premises in question inasmuch as the walls which are otherwise built to withstand a greater load have now to withstand greater load besides being punctured with holes to support the girdles. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the respondent-tenant, on the other hand, contended that although a parchhati has been made, but since the walls have withstood the weight for number of years, there is no substantial damage to the premises and, in any event, the parchhati is a temporary structure made of wood, therefore, has caused no substantial damage to the premises in question. ( 5 ) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under challenge and material placed before me. It appears that there is no dispute between the parties that the premises are being used for residential- cum-commercial purposes. The tenant does not deny that his family resides in the premises and there is evidence on record to show that one room is being used for commercial purposes, besides goods are being stored in the courtyard. It is also not disputed that a parchhati has been built by the tenant-respondent which is equivalent in area to the room let out and is a wooden structure built up by inserting girdles into the walls upon which wooden planks are nailed and is finished by use of ply wood. The question that the Tribunal addressed was - whether such a structure can be said to cause substantial damage to the premises so as to bring it within the mischief of Section 14 (1) (j) ? The Tribunal s findings are as follows : "the evidence produced on record at the most shows that a parchhati made of wooden planks and rafters in the whole leugth and breadth of the room is in existence and that the rafters are inserted into the walls. But there is no evidence as to what is load of the parchhati. The Tribunal s findings are as follows : "the evidence produced on record at the most shows that a parchhati made of wooden planks and rafters in the whole leugth and breadth of the room is in existence and that the rafters are inserted into the walls. But there is no evidence as to what is load of the parchhati. There is no evidence that the load of the parchhati has weakened the wall. The size of the rafters on which the parchhati rests has also not come in evidence. The size of holes in the walls in which the rafters are fixed is also not disclosed by the respondent and brought on the record. The width of the wall in which the parchhati and rafters rests has also not been proved. The nature of the quality of the construction of the walls has also not been stated. For these reasons, it cannot be stated that the parchhati has weakened the structure of the room or thai it amounted to causing of substantial damage to the premises. "the Additional Rent Controller, on the other hand, held that erection of parchhati in the room by the tenant is sufficient to prove that damage is caused under Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act. ( 6 ) HAVING analysed the reasonings of the courts below, I am of the view that the very fact that the tenant-respondent has punctured the weight-bearing walls of the premises in question and created additional space for himself by way of parchhati equivalent to the floor area, admits of increase of weight on the load-bearing walls and certainly can be said to have caused substantial damage to the premises in question. The tenant cannot damage the walls, erect additional space and yet claim that no substantial damage has been caused to the premises in question. Structural change which brings about additional load on the existing load-bearing walls, is substantial damage to the premises in question. It is not necessary that the walls must crumble under additional weight to bring the mischief of the tenant under Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act. Structural change which brings about additional load on the existing load-bearing walls, is substantial damage to the premises in question. It is not necessary that the walls must crumble under additional weight to bring the mischief of the tenant under Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act. Suffice it to say in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the tenant has punctured holes into the walls, created additional space by erectinga parchhati equivalent to the floor area of the room in question and is using the same for either storage of goods and/or residence purposes would come within the mischief of Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act. The tenant is not permitted to make any changes/alterations so as to increase load on the walls which are otherwise designed to hold the structure as was let out to the tenant. ( 7 ) IN this, view of the matter, I set aside the judgment dated 31. 8. 1988 of the Rent Control Tribunal and restore the judgment of the Additional rent Controller dated 17. 12. 1985. The tenant-respondent is directed to restore the premises to its original position by removing the parchhati within a period of one month from today, failing which the judgment and order dated 17. 12. 1985 of the Additional Rent Controller shall come into force. ( 8 ) S. A. O. 171 of 1988 is allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. Having analysed the reasonings of the courts below, I am of the view that the very fact that the tenant-respondent has punctured the weight-bearing walls of the premises in question and created additional space for himself by way of parchhati equivalent to the floor area, admits of increase of weight on the load-bearing walls and certainly can be said to have caused substantial damage to the premises in question. The tenant cannot damage the walls, erect additional space and yet claim that no substantial damage has been caused to the premises in question. Structural change which brings about additional load on the existing load-bearing walls, is substantial damage to the premises in question. It is not necessary that the walls must crumble under additional weight to bring the mischief of the tenant under Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act. Structural change which brings about additional load on the existing load-bearing walls, is substantial damage to the premises in question. It is not necessary that the walls must crumble under additional weight to bring the mischief of the tenant under Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act. Suffice it to say in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the tenant has punctured holes into the walls, created additional space by erecting ,a parchhati equivalent to the floor area of the room in question and is using the same for either storage of goods and/or residence purposes, would come within the mischief of Section 14 (l) (j) of the Act, The tenant is not permitted to make any changes/alterations so as to increase load on the walls which are otherwise designed to hold the structure as was let out to the tenant. ( 9 ) IN this, view of the matter, I set aside the judgment dated 31. 8. 1988 of the Rent Control Tribunal and restore the judgment of the Additional rent Controller dated 17. 12. 1985. The tenant-respondent is directed to restore the premises to its original position by removing the parchhati within a period of one month from today, failing which the judgment and order dated 17. 12. 1985 of the Additional Rent Controller shall come into force. ( 10 ) S. A. O. 171 of 1988 is allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.