Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3846 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. Daulat Ram

2018-09-19

AMIT RAWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J.(Oral) - The landlord is before this Court in revision petition against the judgment of the Appellate Authority whereby appeal of the tenant against the finding of the Rent Controller ordering eviction of the tenant had been allowed. 2. The landlord preferred the rent petition bearing No.110/1997/2001 against the tenant in respect of one shop out of the building bearing No.2794/ix-15 situated in Chowk Chirra, Katra Karam Singh at monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. It was averred that the tenancy was reduced into writing vide rent note dated 20.01.1986. The eviction of the respondent-tenant was sought on the following grounds:- (i) Non payment of rent @ Rs. 150/- w.e.f. 20.08.1994. (ii) Personal necessity as the premises were required for personal use and occupation of his family members as he had two sons namely Jatinder Singh and Tejinder Singh, both were unemployed. (iii) The value and utility of the building had been diminished as the respondent tenant had dug a pit 4-5 feet in depth measuring about 2' x 2 1 /2' for storing the water, which has damaged not only the walls but the main building as well and also raised construction of a parchhati by making holes in the wall without consent and permission of the landlord. 3. The tenant contested the aforementioned rent petition and stated that the rent petition was filed to pressurize the tenant for increasing the rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 1000/- per month. Personal necessity was also denied, much less, arrears of rent. The parchhati had already been constructed in the demised shop at the commencement of tenancy. 4. The Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings framed following issues:- "1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in the application? OPA 2. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR 3. Relief." 5. The landlord examined the following witnesses:- AW1 Giani Jaspal Singh AW2 Akshay Kumar, Deed Writer AW3 Keeratpal Singh AW4 P.N. Aggarwal, Civil Engineer 6. The tenant examined following witnesses and tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.DW1/A, DW1/B, DW1/C and DW1/D:- DW1 Parshotam Lal DW2 Kuldeep Singh DW3 Darshan Singh DW4 Daulat Ram, tenant himself. 7. OPR 3. Relief." 5. The landlord examined the following witnesses:- AW1 Giani Jaspal Singh AW2 Akshay Kumar, Deed Writer AW3 Keeratpal Singh AW4 P.N. Aggarwal, Civil Engineer 6. The tenant examined following witnesses and tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.DW1/A, DW1/B, DW1/C and DW1/D:- DW1 Parshotam Lal DW2 Kuldeep Singh DW3 Darshan Singh DW4 Daulat Ram, tenant himself. 7. Vis-a-vis issue No.1 with regard to arrears of rent as well as personal necessity, the Rent Controller decided the same against the landlord, for, he did not step into the witness box but the witness Giani Jaspal Singh was examined. Vis-a-vis ground of impairment, the expert P.N. Aggarwal brought on record his report Ex.PX and site plan Ex.PX/1, which revealed that there was construction of parchhati, which was of permanent in nature. The tenant stated that parchhati was raised with the consent of the landlord as he had taken the shop for the purpose of carrying out repairs of cycles and other vehicles. The parchhati was not constructed with permanent structure/steel girder but with the support of wooden girders. 8. The Rent Controller did not find favour with the contention of the tenant and ordered eviction on the ground of impairment of value and utility of the demised premises. Appeal at the instance of the tenant only was preferred, whereas, no appeal was preferred by the landlord against the dismissal of the rent petition on the grounds of arrears of rent and personal necessity. The Appellate Authority, as noticed above, accepted the appeal and rejected the rent petition in toto. 9. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is not only perverse but atrocious and fallacious, for, it failed to notice the report Ex.PX and site plan Ex.PX/1 proved on record by the expert P.N. Aggarwal, who found that parchhati was made of permanent structure and therefore, it diminished the value and utility of the building. Even cracks on the wall has occurred. No permission was granted to the tenant to dig a pit and in such situation, the Appellate Authority has abdicated in not discussing the report as well as photographs brought on record. The site plan clearly showed that there was a pit, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the finding of the Appellate Authority. 10. No permission was granted to the tenant to dig a pit and in such situation, the Appellate Authority has abdicated in not discussing the report as well as photographs brought on record. The site plan clearly showed that there was a pit, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the finding of the Appellate Authority. 10. In support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Radha Krishan vs. Amar Singh 1999 (2) RCR (Rent) 523 to submit that where a tenant for the purpose of constructing a parchhati has fixed a beam and one steel girder, it has been held that the value and utility of the building has impaired and on similar lines various other judgments of different High Courts. 11. Per contra, Mr. Rajinder Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-tenant submitted that the tenant to a specific question in the crossexamination answered that parchhati was raised with the consent of the landlord but the same was not rebutted. In the report Ex.PX, there is not even a whisper with regard to site plan Ex.PX/1 and therefore, Ex.PX/1 would be meaningless. The expert had also not been consistent as at one place it was stated that parchhati was recently constructed but in other words, it was stated to be an old one and so was the testimony of Giani Jaspal Singh. The Appellate Authority after examining the aforementioned evidence set aside the finding of eviction, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the revision petition by affirming the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book, records of the Courts below and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Sodhi. One of the ground for dismissal of the rent petition in toto which found favour with the Appellate Authority was that the landlord did not come forward. The counsel for the landlord raised a specific question to the tenant with regard to parchhati and the answer was that the parchhati had been constructed with the consent of the landlord and it was old. The aforementioned specific question should not have been asked in the crossexamination. Be that as it may, the landlord had not stepped into the witness box to refute the same. The aforementioned specific question should not have been asked in the crossexamination. Be that as it may, the landlord had not stepped into the witness box to refute the same. The report of the expert Ex.PX is completely silent with regard to digging of the pit, except mentioned in site plan Ex.PX/1, thus, it appears that the expert's report is not in tandem with the site plan. It is common practice amongst experts to tow to the line of the party, which engages them. In my view, the landlord has failed to discharge onus as enshrined under section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. There is no dispute to the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment referred supra but that was the case where the parchhati was raised by the tenant with the help of "Steel Girder, however, the case set out in the rent petition revealed that the parchhati was constructed with the help of wooden batons. The photographs brought on record did not reveal that there was any pit digged as intended to be projected. 14. A cumulative effect of the aforementioned evidence and appreciation of material brought on record does not render the finding rendered by the Appellate Authority to be perverse. No ground for interference is made out. The judgment of the Appellate Authority is upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.