1983 PLP 2063 (CLC)

The record of Rent Controller had been summoned, and, with the assistance of Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami, I have gone through the same. I have come to the conclusion that this appeal does not merit admission, and, since I propose to dismiss the same in limine, I have not thought it proper to issue any notice to the respondent/landlord, for that might only burden him with costs and cause him unnecessary trouble. The only issues, that had been framed in the case were, whether the ejectment application was maintainable, and, whether the tenant had removed the intervening wall between the two shops without the consent of the landlord, and thereby materially impaired the value, or, utility of the building.' On the point of maintainability, all that Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami said before me was that earlier the landlord bad filed a suit, bearing No. 1045/1975, in a Civil Court for a declaration that the appellant was a trespasser. He stated that the said suit was dismissed, and an appeal had been filed, which was, perhaps, pending. It seems the contention is that, since the landlord had once chosen to call the tenant a trespasser, he would continue to have the same status of trespasser, despite any other fact existing, or intervening. First of all, it must be said that no documents have been placed on the record in respect of the earlier suit. But it would be reasonable to assume that, since the suit, in which the landlord sought a declaration that the present appellant/tenant was a trespasser was dismissed, it is very probable that the civil Court had held the present tenant as a tenant, and not as a trespasser. I asked Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami as to whether the appellant had disputed that he was a trespasser, or, whether the appellant, in that suit, had claimed to be a tenant, and to such a question, Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami replied that he was not able to make a reply, because he was not appearing in earlier suit. Be that as it may, the present position is that, on his own. admission, the appellant is a tenant, and he could not, therefore, be heard to say, just to defeat ejectment application, that he was not a tenant, but a trespasser, as to` oust the jurisdiction of the Controller. There is no substance in this contention. In regard to the removal of the intervening wall between the two shops, there is no factual dispute. It is admitted that a wall has been removed. The case set up by the tenant was that the wall had been removed with the oral permission of the landlord. To that extent, the landlord had denied it. The appellant/tenant had examined a witness by name Intezar Hussain. Intezar Hussain in his initial affidavit of evidence, had stated that the partition wall had been removed after verbal permission was given by the landlord. However, in cross‑examination, he had stated as follows :‑ " In my presence no one had permitted the opponent (tenant) to demolish partition wall." The above admission of Intezar Hussain clearly shows that he had not witnessed the grant of any such permission, on which the tenant seeks to rely. In regard to the other evidence, the learned Controller has appreciated the same in a very fair manner, and has arrived at conclusion that the defence set up by the present appellant/tenant was false. In the process of reasoning adopted by the learned Controller, no fault can be found. I have also read‑ the evidence of the respondent/landlord, and arrived at same conclusions of fact. What is more that, when the landlord gave a notice to the tenant, no reply was made: This circumstance, by itself, shows that the defence set up by the appellant/ 'tenant was an afterthought. In that context, the tenant has also stated that, because the tenants had formed a sort of union, the landlord bad become hostile. The hostility of the landlord cannot be inferred just from such c1rcum stances. In any case, the removal of the partition wall has been admitted. The next contention of Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami is that the value of the premises has not been materially impaired by removal of the wall. This argument has not at all impressed me, because 1 cannot understand how the value of a building does not get reduced, or, impaired if a wall has been constructed, because, after all, the construction of the wall must have cost something. What is more that the two tenements have now been reduced to one. In cases of this nature, it is reasonable to infer that the removal of a wall would impair the value, or, utility of the premises. This contention is also misconceived. It was also argued by Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami that by converting two shops into one, in fact the rent would increase. In fact, no data has been placed on the record on that point, and I have not been impressed by the same. In the result, I dismiss this appeal in limine. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.