Dismissed

Vijay Kumar Puri & Another v. Kiran Behl and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2013CR/170/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision against an eviction order. It held that treating the property as two distinct units and failing to occupy a portion after a co-tenant's death constituted cessation of occupation. The eviction order was maintained, allowing 4 months for execution, with 4-month protection contingent on future rent payment.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order maintained; time of 4 months granted for execution, conditional upon payment of subsequent rent.

Vijay Kumar Puri & Another Vs Kiran Behl and… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

C.R. No.170 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.170 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision.14.01.2013

¶5

Vijay Kumar Puri and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kiran Behl and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the caveator.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

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

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶16

¶17

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶18

The revision is against the order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the tenant had been guilty of material alteration that impaired the value and utility by raising a wooden partition within the demised premise that vivisected the property into two and allowed for enjoyment of the tenants in two distinct portions. The other ground for eviction was that yet another tenant, who was joint with the petitioner's father had died and after his death, his sons who were in Government service did not occupy and the property had been kept in state of disuse and the tenant had ceased to occupy the portion of the building subsequent to the death of the co-tenant, the tenant did no more than pay the rent for the whole property but it was not put to any use.

¶19

The tenant's contention was that the structure, which was raised in the demised property through the partition was done in the

¶20

-2-

¶21

C.R. No.170 of 2013 (O&M)

¶22

year 1984 itself and the landlord had known about it and the rent, however, was continued to be paid by both the tenants together treating the tenancy as in respect of one single unit. The trial Court and the Appellate Court found that mere consent of the landlord to allow for raising the wooden partition would not conclude the issue, for, an act which was not expressly authorized must be taken to be against the provisions of the Act and there could be no estoppel against the statute. I will not go as far as to state that the wooden partition, which according to the tenant was in the nature of a temporary structure constituted any material impairment.

¶23

However, in this case what has come through the evidence is that the two tenants, who had taken the property, had literally allowed the property to be treated as two distinct units although the unity of tenancy itself was not jeopardized by taking two separate lease deeds. The rent payable was also at the instance of both tenants and the rent was a stipulated sum for the whole property only. In this case, if the tenant was making a justification for raising a wooden partition by the fact that the landlord did not object to it and the landlord knew that the property was being put to use to two distinct units, the nonuser of property, which is admitted to be so during the course of trial would itself show that the tenant has ceased to occupy a portion of the property. A cessation as a ground for eviction is only on the ground that the property, which is rented out to a tenant is put to optimal use which is beneficial to both tenant and landlord and it shall not become possible to tenant to close the premise and contend that since he is prepared to pay rent, he would not render himself liable for eviction. A

¶24

C.R. No.170 of 2013 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

cessation that results in a disuse is good enough ground for eviction and it is an admitted fact that one of the co-tenants had literally found no use in the property and the legal representatives of the original cotenant were not interested in the property and had also remained ex parte during the proceedings. With no plea of collusion coming from the other tenant, the only inference would be that the portion of the property had been ceased to occupy by the tenant, which was specifically demarcated by the partition made, the order of eviction ought to operate for the whole of the property, for there cannot be any splitting up of single tenancy. The order of eviction made on the ground that the tenant was guilty of cessation of the premise was properly established and I would find no reason to interfere with the same.

¶27

The orders of the Courts below are sustained in so far as it relates to cessation of occupation of the demised premises. The eviction order is maintained and the revision petition is dismissed. Time for eviction for 4 months.

¶28

Learned counsel for the landlord, who is in caveat says that the tenant has not paid the rent subsequent to the decision of the Appellate Authority. The continuance in possession for the time indicated above will avail to the tenant only so long as he pays the rent to the landlord or makes it tender in the manner known to law. If there is any default, the time granted shall lapse and the landlord will be at liberty to execute the order of eviction forthwith.

¶29

January 14, 2013 Pankaj*

Vijay Kumar Puri & Another v. Kiran Behl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Puri & Another v. Kiran Behl and Others

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

Union of India Vs Kehar Singh and Ors.

Sohanbir Singh Vs P.O. Indu. Trib. Cum Labour Cour-I Gurgaon and Anr.

Brij Bhushan Bagga Vs Kulbhushan Bagga and Others

Avinash Kumar Vs Sukhwinder Kaur and Anr.

Hem Raj Vs Kedar Nath and Anr.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Bhagwan Singh and Ors.