Dismissed

M/S Jhandu Lal v. Shri Murari Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2012CR/1225/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision against an ejectment order, the court dismissed the case against a tenant accused of removing walls between rooms. It held that the physical reduction in premises from four to two rooms constituted material impairment and dismissed the tenant's challenge.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision filed against the order of ejectment was dismissed and the eviction order was confirmed.

M/S Jhandu Lal Vs Shri Murari Lal — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.1225 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2012

¶3

M/s Jhandu Lal Madan Lal through Shri Madan Lal its Proprietor (deceased) through his LRs.

¶4

...Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Shri Murari Lal son of Shri Devi Chand, resident of House No.5579, Saudagar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

¶7

....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶9

Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

¶14

----

¶15

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶16

The tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court against the order of ejectment made finding that he had been guilty of material impairment of the building that reduced its value and utility. The landowner's petition for eviction on this ground was dismissed but in appeal the Court made reference to the recital in the rent note executed in the year 1973 that there were 4 rooms in the building No.5579/3, 5579/4 that were given to the tenant, but as a matter of fact, at the time when the petition was filed, there were only 2 rooms and the intervening walls said to have been present in

¶17

Civil Revision No.1225 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

each one of the door numbers had been removed. The contention of the tenant had been that the building continued to be in the same condition as they were let out and the recitals in the rent note were not true. The submission was that there had been a fire in the shop in the year 1972 and the landlord himself had renovated the building over a period of 5 years and the separating walls had been removed in that process. The rent was originally 35/- which was increased to 50/- after the renovation had been done. The tenant would state that he did not know the recitals in the rent deed that there were 4

¶19

rooms.

¶20

Both the parties relied on the statement of experts, who made their own assessments of the existence or otherwise of the intervening walls. The learned counsel for the petitioner has essentially three contentions to make: (i) the landlord had not placed the site plants which would show the actual location of the alleged intervening walls; (ii) the landlord had been living in the first floor of the very same building and if any wall had been removed, he would have immediately obstructed the same or given a complaint. The fact that the case was filed only in the year 1985 showed that the landlord had actually acquiesced in the act of removal if it was true; and (iii) the landlord's report through draftsman cannot be relied because he was not expert at all and had no engineering qualification. On the other hand, the tenant had brought the evidence of RW2, who was an Engineer and who had spoken about the fact

¶21

Civil Revision No.1225 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 -

¶22

that if any intervening wall had been removed, the building will bear the traces of such removal besides weakening the integrity of the building that supported the roof.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to make elaborate references to the statement of witnesses brought in vernacular without bringing to me the benefit of the translated copies. His attempt is also to secure re-appreciation of fact of what the appellate Court had done. When the issue was that the rent note itself made reference to the existence of 4 rooms, it is immaterial that the site plan was not produced. The fact remains that there are only 2 rooms in the demised premise now. I cannot allow for an alteration of the recitals in a written document by parol evidence. Alteration or modification was possible only in a circumstance that vitiated the truth of execution of the document itself. I have not the issue before me that the rent note itself was a got up document by practice of any fraud or deception by the landlord. The tenant was a person of age and understanding and if he had subscribed the signature on a document imprudently without apprising himself of what the recitals were, he cannot be heard to disown the recitals contained in the said document. The matter would have to simply rest on what ultimately the condition of the building turned out to be which was at variance with the recitals found in the rent deed. If the building was only comprised of 2 rooms when rent note referred to the existence of 4 rooms, the inference has to be necessarily that the

¶24

Civil Revision No.1225 of 1998 (O&M) - 4 -

¶25

intervening walls had been removed. The case of acquiescence by the landlord also has no meaning, for, according to the landlord, the removal itself had been made only in the year 1985 and that was when the petition itself was filed. As regards the credentials of the Draftsman, whose report the landlord relied on, although the appellate Court itself had said that he did not possess any engineering degree, it made reference to the fact that the said witness was a retiree from the Army and he had been trained in the building engineering. Between the two reports filed by the landlord and the tenant, I have nothing to choose. I would only rest on the reasoning already adopted by the appellate Court that there had been a removal, which I find to be essentially appreciation of question of fact.

¶26

If there had been a removal of walls, it ought to be understood as constituting material impairment. It could have been a matter of greater convenience for the petitioner, but the landlord's perception of removal as constituting the value and utility ought to prevail. I cannot find any reason to differ with such a perception.

¶27

The order of the appellate authority is confirmed and the civil revision is dismissed.

¶28

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

¶29

29.08.2012 sanjeev

M/S Jhandu Lal v. Shri Murari Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jhandu Lal v. Shri Murari Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Jatinder Singh Vs Mukesh Mehra

Jatinder Singh Vs Mukesh Mehra

Jatinder Singh Vs Mukesh Mehra

Bansi and Anr. Vs Vikas

Thuru Ram and and. Vs Sat Pal

Rameshwar Dass Vs State of Haryana & Ors.