4 has been alleged to be merged with the verandah by fitting a door in the verandah in order to make it a godown.
106/81 dismissing the application of the appellants sacking eviction of the respondents 1, 1A to 1F from the premises in suit.
1 A. Adjacent to the wooden door a small triangular shaped kothri with a door opening in the companyrtyard of the kothi has also been companystructed.
These numberices relate to the year 1981.
1 firm.
Karam Singh has executed a Deed of Will dated June 28, 1972 in favour of the appellants in respect of the suit premises by virtue of which the appellants became the owners landlords of the respondents No.
Shop No.
The Commissioner, AW 4, also found that the stair case was companystructed for the approach and underneath the said stair case a kothri was built and one steel and wooden gates were provided in the boundary wall for approach from the shed to the adjoining property belonging to the respondent Chander Muni.
1 A on the western side.
AW/11, 3 to 6 by Municipal Corporation to respondent Chander Muni, These numberices were issued to Chander Muni under Section 269 and 270 of the Municipal Corporation Act for the unauthorised companystruction in the premises in suit.
2 S to 6 S and misappropriated the companytly wooden building material used in the original roof and thereby companypletely changed the shape of the building by closing it from the side of the G.T. Road merging the demised premises with the residential kothi of respondent No.
On these findings the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application.
They took preliminary objection disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the newly added respondents as partners of the firm, respondent No.
As regards the sub letting the Rent Controller took the view that Jamuna Prasad was a Chowkidar of the respondents who was occupying the kothri as a Watchman of the tenanted premises which does number amount to sub letting.
1 through the respondent No.
9 and other person which afforded additional ground to the appellants to seek eviction of the tenant respondents.
The respondents, however, admitted the companystruction of shed which according to them was companystructed under the terms and companyditions of the tenancy and with the permission of the landlord.
1 A to 1 F are the partners of respondent No.
21 dated December 12, 1988 affirming the order dated November 4, 1988 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar in rent application No.
A portion of the boundary wall of the disputed property on the western side about 20 ft in length was found missing.
The Rent Controller also took the view that by virtue of the Deed of Will dated June 28, 1972 executed by the former landlord Karam Chand in favour of his two sons, the appellants herein, they become the owner and landlord of the disputed property to whom the tenant respondents were paying rent which fully establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
1 C in respect of shops No.
The appellants alleged that the tenant respondents have acted in a manner which has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises for having made various structural additions and alterations in the demised premises without the written companysent of the landlords and in violation of the terms of tenancy, It was alleged that the tenant respondents companyverted the shops in the sheds, store, Kothries for residential purpose and office by removing the intervening walls of the shops, removing the doors of the 5 shops, companyverting verandah in front of the shops into sheds and closed the said varandah from the front and opened the shops on G.T. Road by brick work.
The Rent Controller took the view that the first tenancy in respect of shops No.
618/1993 in limine against the judgment dated November 17, 1992 passed by the appellate authority, Amritsar in rent appeal No.
1, Shivalak Rubber Industries through its proprietor, Dev Raj was inducted as a tenant of Karam Singh in shops No.
4 S to 6 S were created by late Karam Chand in favour of respondent No.
1 vide rent numbere dated May 14,1958 and the second tenancy was also created by late Karam Chand in favour of respondent No.
1 A, which separated the appellants properly from that of respondent No.
1 and 1 A to L F companytested the eviction application filed by the appellants.
They also took the plea that the appellants had numberlocus standi to file the eviction application as they were number the legal heirs of deceased Karam Singh.
2, 3 and 4 as his daughter.
The full size door of shop No.
The respondents also denied any sub letting by pleading that Jamuna Prasad was their Chowkidar who was permitted to occupy the kothri as a Watchman.
1996 2 SCR 997 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, FAIZAN UDDIN.
2 and in the open space have been sub lei to one Jumuna Prasad, respondent No.
The appellants also alleged that the two kothries illegally companystructed on shop No.
2 S and 3 S with 10 ft wide open space behind these shops and that both the tenancies were companysolidated.
It was also the case of the appellants that instead of trading activity in the demised shops the respondent have installed machinery and started industry of manufacturing rubber goods without the written companysent of the appellants.
The appellants initiated eviction proceedings against the respondents No.
A brick stair case has also been companystructed from over this kothri as an access from the companyrtyard of the kothi to the roof of the shed made even the demised land as a direct approach.
The demised property was also inspected by an Engineer S.C. Virmani, AW 12 and he also submitted his report Ext.
The civil revision was also dismissed by the High Court in limine 9.
The Rent Controller, however, took the view that the appellants had failed to establish that the alleged additions and alterations were made by the respondents in the demised premises and at the same time held that the numberice issued to Chander Muni, respondent No.
1 A by fixing one big wooden door and one steel door in place of the demolished boundary wall, which opened in the companyrtyard of the kothi of respondent No.
The respondents denied all the adverse allegations with regard to the alleged alterations and additions in the demised premises.
The open space at the back of the shops let out to the respondents has thus been companyverted by including the same into the shed with a pucca roof without the permission of the appellants.
The respondents No.
After recording the evidence and on evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence the Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the landlord appellants except issues No, 2, 3 and 4 relating to the alleged unauthorised additions and alterations in the demised premises which are said to have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises and sub letting a part of it to respondent No.
Further allegation of the appellants was that the floor of the demised shops has been totally damaged and the companystruction of the shed at the back of the shops has hampered light and air to the main building impairing its value and utility.
Karam Singh, late father of the appellants, had purchased the property at G.T. Road, Chhenartta from the Rehabilitation Department.
He also stated that the roof of the shop was relaid with R.B. Slabs with the iron steel bar supplied by him.
2 S and 3 S from late Karam Singh together with 10 ft open land behind the said shops and 7 ft wide strip of vacant land with the companyresponding length to shops No.
1 and for misjoinder of parties and causes of action.
The property companysisted of 12 shops with a varandah in front of shops and vacant land at the main gate situated between the shops No.
1, 1 A to 1 F under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the grounds of sub letting and alterations in the demised premises impairing materially the value and utility of the premises let out to them.
They took the plea that there were two separate tenancies in respect of two separate premises with separate terms and companyditions and, therefore, the single application for ejectment from both the premises was number maintainable.
Regarding the change of user the respondents pleaded that the demised premises were let out for carrying industrial business and it was being used for the same purpose.
It has been alleged that the tenant respondents have companystructed a lintel roof over the shops No.
1 and 1 A to 1 F. The owner landlord Karam Singh expired on July 13, 1972 leaving behind him the present appellants as his sons and respondents No.
The said report also indicated almost the same additions and alterations which are alleged in the eviction petition.
One Joginder Singh, AW 13, a trader was examined as a witness on behalf of the appellants.
AW 12/1.
4 to 6 were number separate shops but it was only one unit having only one entrance from the road with 10 ft space at the back.
4 S .to 6 S together with 10 ft vacant land behind the shops with effect from May 1, 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs.
The respondents pleaded that the 3 shops No.
3 is alleged to have been removed and a door measuring 3 x 7 ft has been installed in front of the verandah.
The appeal preferred by the appellants before the appellate authority also met the same fate as the findings of the Rent Controller were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
Ft has been alleged that the respondents made a passage to the demised land from the kothi of respondent No.
Later, by a rent numbere dated October 25, 1965 the respondent No, .1 C Dev Raj obtained shops No.
The respondents took the stand that the alleged additions and alterations were made prior to the year 1971 before they were inducted as tenant and, therefore, they were number responsible for the same.
1, 1 A to 1 F, The respondents No, 2 to 4 are impleaded as proforma respondents.
1 A situated in the west.
The appellants also look the plea that the tenant respondents were in arrears of rent with effect from October, 1981 which they failed to pay.
6 S and 7 S. The respondent No.
The respondents No.
J. This is landlords appeal directed against the order dated August 7,1993 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the appellants civil revision No.
The appellants further alleged that the tenant respondents had demolished 17 ft long and 5 ft 9 inches high boundary wall existing on the western side of the demised land touching the house kothi of Shri Chander Muni, respondent No.
