VIPIN KUMAR Vs. ROSHAN LAL ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Civil Revision No. 1125 of 1984, dated 18/07/1984 confirming the decree of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for short 'the Act'. The ground for eviction ultimately upheld by the courts below was that the appellant had constructed a wall in the verandah of the demised premises and put up a door which materially impaired the value or utility of the building. Shri Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had not constructed the offending construction. Even if it is so there is no proof adduced by the landlord that by such a construction the value or utility of the building had been materially impaired. As such the decree of eviction is clearly illegal. In support thereof he placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in Om Prakash v. Amar Singh.

(2.) The question, therefore, is whether the Finding of courts below which concurrently found that the appellant had constructed a wall in the verandah which materially affected the value or utility of the shop is vitiated by law. The building consists of two shops and the appellant was inducted into one such shop. He constructed the wall in the verandah and put up the door. Therefore, it is a finding of fact which we cannot evaluate on the evidence and upset that finding. It was also found that the wall was constructed without the permission of the landlord. Due to construction the value or utility of the building has been materially affected. Section 13 (1 provides thus:

(3.) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant may remain in possession for one year and shall vacate the premises on or before 1/04/1994 subject to the condition that the appellant should pay Rs. 200. 00 per month from April 1993 till date of eviction. He should file undertaking in the Registry of this court within a period of six weeks with usual conditions. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.