Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 1221
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
Karam Singh (Died) Through Lrs.
Versus
Chaudhri Auto Division
C.R. No. 222 of 1983,
Decided On : OCTOBER 12, 1999
The consent of the landlord is required for any alteration of the premises by the tenant, and oral evidence cannot be admitted to prove the existence of a lease different from the written agreement.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 13(3)(a)(i) - EVICTION - ALTERATION OF PREMISES - CONSENT OF LANDLORD - INTERPRETATION OF RENT AGREEMENT - ORAL EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Karam Singh, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, M/s. Chaudhri Auto Division, alleging that the respondent had converted three shops into one by removing the intervening walls without the consent of the landlord, thereby impairing the value and utility of the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had converted the three shops into one showroom with the consent of the petitioner's son, who had attended the opening ceremony. The court also found that the rent agreement, which stated that the shops were taken for running a showroom, implied that one showroom had to be set up and not three showrooms in three shops.
Issues: 1. Whether the intervening walls of the three shops were removed with the consent of the petitioner? 2. Whether oral evidence can be admitted to prove the existence of a lease different from the written agreement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the removal of the intervening walls was deemed to be with the consent of the landlord, as the rent agreement itself showed that one showroom had to be set up. 2. The court held that oral evidence cannot be taken into account to prove the existence of a lease different from the written agreement, but in this case, the evidence was not very different from what had been pleaded.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the findings of fact by the lower courts were not disturbed.
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Karam Singh (since deceased) and now represented by legal representatives against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur dated 22.12.1980 and of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur dated 6.11.1982. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction and the order was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
2. The relevant facts are that petition for eviction had been filed by Karam Singh against the respondent-M/s. Chaudhri Auto Division. It was asserted that the property in question which comprises of three shops was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- vide rent note dated 26.8.1978. Shri R.K.K. Chaudhary had executed the rent note. The respondent was alleged to be in arrears of rent since 26.9.1978 and converted three shops into one by removing the intervening walls without the consent of the landlord. It was in this process that it was asserted that value and utility of the premises has been impaired.
3. The respondent contested the eviction petition. According to the respondent, property had been let out for purposes of a show room. Three shops were converted in to one shop by the agent of the petitioner because the purpose of the tenancy was to run a showroom. It was denied, therefore, that value and utility of the property has been impaired.
4. On framing of the issues, the learned Rent Controller had recorded the evidence. It was held that tender of arrears of rent was valid. It was further held that the respondent has not impaired the value and utility of the property. It was concluded that it was let out as a show-room and intervening walls had been removed with the consent of the petitioner. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed. An appeal was preferred and the Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. The short question which was only agitated during the course of arguments was as to whether the intervening walls which admittedly had been removed from the three shops had been so removed with the consent of the petitioner or not ?
6. On behalf of the petitioner it had vehemently been urged that as per rent agreement, three shops had been let out. Oral evidence contrary to the terms of the written agreement will not be considered and further that within 3 months of the letting out of premises, the petition for eviction had been filed which indicates that permission had never been granted to remove the intervening walls. On the contrary respondents learned counsel highlighted that it was let out for a show room. The petitioners son had attended the opening ceremony and the walls were removed with the implicit consent of petitioners son. He also urged that it is a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority which should not be disturbed in the revision petition because there is no illegality or impropriety in arriving at those findings.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners had made available the translation of the rent deed which reads:-
"I am Manager of M/s. Chaudhary Auto Engine, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, near Polytechnical College through R.K.K. Chaudhary, Proprietor. It is situated in the Abadi, Jalandhar Road, Gokal Nagar, Hoshiarpur. There are three single storeyed shops bounded as under:-
East: Shop of the owner. West: Plot of Sohan Singh. North: Road. South: Kothi of the owner. It is in the ownership of Sh. Karam Singh, son of Sh. Tara Singh, Ramgaria by caste, resident of Gokal Nagar, Hoshiarpur. I have taken all the three shops on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month since 26.8.1978. Now, I having received Rs. 400/- as rent for all the three shops upto 25.9.1978 have executed this Rent Deed to the effect that I will continue paying rent every month like this to the owner. I shall receive the receipt in lieu of the payment or make an entry on the back of the
