Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.@mdashThe respondent / landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner / tenant u/s 14(1)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, ''the said Act'') on ground of causing substantial damage to the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises consist of a portion of property No. 63A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, which was let out to the petitioner in terms of a written agreement dated 04.12.1998. The tenanted premises are two rooms on the ground floor with permission to remove the partition wall. The agreed monthly rental was Rs. 1,500/-. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner caused substantial damage to the premises by making material structural additions and alterations without the written consent of the respondent. The respondent alleged that shortly after letting of the premises on 31.12.1998, the petitioner started large-scale construction, repairs / alterations whereby the partition wall between the two rooms was removed without the prior approval of any Architect (contrary to the mandate of the agreement) and the floor of the tenanted premises was dug up to the extent of 4.5 ft. depth and 13 ft. in length and 8 ft. in width. A civil suit for injunction was filed at that stage to restrain the petitioner in which status quo orders were passed.
2. The petitioner contested the eviction petition and denied the allegation. The parties led their evidence and the Additional Rent Controller (for short, ''ARC'') in terms of the order dated 14.03.2005 held that the grounds u/s 14(1)(j) of the said Act were made out. However, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to restore the tenanted premises to the original condition within one month from the date of the order.
3. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the petition, upon an application by the petitioner u/s 15(2) of the said Act, an order was passed on 21.09.2000 directing the petitioner to pay or deposit rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month w.e.f. 01.02.2000. The rent was, however, not deposited w.e.f. March, 2004 and, thus, the defense of the petitioner was liable to be struck off. This fact is noted in para 12 of the judgment of the ARC. However, despite this, the ARC proceeded to examine the case on merits.
4. The basis for the judgment of the ARC is the fact that the petitioner did not deny the additions and alterations in the tenanted premises, but claimed that in view of the agreement with the respondent no written consent was required for the same. The rent deed Exhibit AW-1/3 and 4 has been considered and a finding was reached that what was done was contrary to the agreement arrived at between the parties. There was a specific stipulation in Clause 8 that no addition, alteration or structural changes were permissible without the written consent of the respondent. The changes made were structural in nature. The position is the same in respect of other repairs as per Clause 12 of the agreement. Even for removing the partition wall, the agreement mandated as per Clause 1 that a prior approval of competent Architect had to be taken. No such certificate of Architect was produced in evidence. The petitioner was also found to have constructed a loft and constructed a staircase to the loft. This was demolished by the MCD, Building Department being unauthorised.
5. The petitioner even after passing of the aforesaid judgment did not restore the premises to the original position with the result that an application was filed u/s 14(10) of the said Act. It may be noticed that the petitioner also moved an application along with a report of an Architect stating that he was not earlier properly advised and could not produce the report of the Architect which showed no damage had been caused to the tenanted premises. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as, ''the Tribunal'') and apparently the application was more or less on the same grounds as the appeal. A prayer was made that instead of seeking restoration of the premises to the original condition, compensation may be directed to the respondent. The ARC found that there had been whole-scale and substantial reconstruction of the tenanted premises without prior permission of the landlord including unauthorised construction. The landlord would be the best judge to see how the value of his property could be enhanced and in such large-scale substantive changes objected to by the landlord, compensation would not be the adequate remedy. An eviction order was, thus, passed against the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal dealt with both the appeals by a common order dated 28.09.2006. The scope of the agreement between the parties was once again considered. It has also to be kept in mind that the Tribunal functions only as a court of first appeal on a question of law u/s 38 of the said Act. No reasons were found to interfere with the clear findings of the ARC of substantial changes being made to the tenanted premises. The premises had not been restored to the original position despite opportunity granted. What was earlier one shop was converted into a shop with a basement and a loft. It is a different matter that action was taken by the MCD against unauthorised construction. There was also possibility of endangering the whole property.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner once again seeks to challenge all the aforesaid orders on the ground that there was specific agreement for such additions / alterations. No doubt certain changes were provided for in the agreement, but a certificate of the Architect was required for removing the wall. The petitioner went far beyond what was permissible, dug up a basement, made a loft with the staircase changing the nature and character of the premises and causing substantive damage. The petitioner cannot be permitted to say that only improvements were carried out in the premises. In such a situation, the impugned orders can hardly be faulted.
8. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to remedy the position, but failed to do so. The petitioner, in fact, insisted that the order of restoration of the premises should be given a go-bye and damages should be the compensation. This request was rightly rejected.
9. In the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence and the object is only to see that the subordinate courts and tribunals function within their jurisdiction and there is no patent error. The impugned orders hardly call for any interference.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that extension of time may be granted to once again restore the premises. I am not inclined to accept the said request at this stage. The petitioner deliberately violated the terms of the agreement causing substantive damage to the property and making structural changes whereby the one shop was converted into two shops.
11. In the end, it may be noticed that initially on 24.11.2006 when the matter was heard and no merits were found in the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken time to verify whether the petitioner would like to invite an adverse order and take his remedy or would like to take some time to vacate the tenanted premises on grant of time subject to furnishing of the usual undertaking. Learned Counsel states that he has received instructions that the petitioner seeks recourse to further legal remedy.
12. Dismissed.
