Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2028
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.
Vijay Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Man Mohan Goel – Respondent
CM NO. 1203-CII of 2023 IN/AND CR NO. 432 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2023
Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Headnote:(A) Rent Control Act - Grounds for eviction - Material alteration - The landlord's petition for eviction based on material alterations to the premises was allowed—tenancy altered following unauthorized reconstruction of walls by the tenant—tenant's defenses of oral permission not substantiated. Court upheld the lower court’s findings of material change in the property which negatively affected its value. (Paras 4, 12, 14, 18)
(B) Burden of proof - The tenant admitted reconstruction but claimed it was with landlord’s oral permission—court noted that such claim was unproven. The Respondent-landlord's obligation to prove alterations diminished due to tenant’s admissions. (Paras 11, 16)
Facts of the case:
The landlord sought tenant eviction due to unauthorized rebuilding of the shop's walls causing material changes. Tenant acknowledged alterations made to address encroachment issues but failed to provide proof of permission.
Findings of Court:
The learned Rent Controller and appellate court found no evidence of permission for alterations and upheld the eviction order due to material change.
Issues: Whether the tenant’s actions constituted a material alteration warranting eviction and whether the tenant proved oral consent from the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court confirmed that admissions by the tenant regarding material changes and lack of proof for consent justified the eviction, establishing that the value of the property had been altered materially.
Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge to lower court's eviction order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. material alteration found by rent controller. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments against the material change ruling. (Para 9) |
| 5. court's analysis on tenant's admission. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. burden of proof and admissions related to property changes. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. conclusion: dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
M No. 1203-CII of 2023
Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in re-filing the appeal.
2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 29 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CR No. 432 of 2023
3. In the present civil revision petition, the challenge is to the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the lower appellate court by which the rent petition filed by the Respondent-landlord has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.08.2018 on the ground of material alteration and the appeal filed by the Petitioner-tenant has been dismissed.
4. The Respondent-landlord had filed a rent petition for eviction of the present Petitioner from the shop in question, description of which was given in the rent petition on the ground that he has re-constructed the four walls of the shop after demolishing the same, which has materially changed the construction. Apart from the said ground, certain other grounds were taken seeking eviction of the shop in question.
5. After notice was issued, the Petitioner-tenant filed reply to the rent petition admitting the re-construction of the walls but submitted that the same was done on the oral instructions of the Respondent-landlord keeping in view the notice, which was received from the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak on 16.07.2014, according to which notice, the original construction of the property in question involved encroachment.
6. After leading the evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to a conclusion that re-construction of the walls of the shop in question has been admitted by the tenant and the plea that the re-construction has been done on the oral instructions of the landlord, has not been proved hence, there is a material change in the property as, the re-construction was done to overcome the encroachment being alleged by the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak and the dimensions of the property has been changed. The learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the property in question by the Petitioner-tenant vide order dated 20.08.2018.
7. Against the said order, the Petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court also came to the conclusion that keeping in view the material changes in the property, which has been admitted by the Petitioner-tenant but was being supported on the ground of oral permission, has not been proved as no oral permission could be proved by the Petitioner-tenant so as to re-construct the walls of the property again to do away with the alleged encroachment by the tenant so as to reduce the area of the property which tenancing.
8. In the present civil revision petition, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate court are under challenge.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that in the present case, there is only re-construction of the walls and once, it has not come on record that the said re-construction has impaired the value of the property in question, the eviction order by the learned Rent Controller which was upheld by the appellate authority is contrary to the settled principle of law. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argues that there was no admission that the Petitioner-tenant had materially altered the property by re-construction of the walls of shop in question.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and ha
