DALIP KAUR Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/tenant are aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, Ludhiana dated 10.8.1983 allowing appeal of the respondent-landlady and directing them to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the landlady. The respondent had let out two shops on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- to the petitioner. She had filed an application for eviction of the petitioners on various grounds which did not find favour with the trial Court. The Rent Controller, therefore, dismissed her petition vide order dated 30.1.1981. One of the grounds for eviction was that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the property by breaking the wall between the two shops and making a door therein. The following allegations had been specifically made in para 4(A) of the application for eviction :

(2.) THE respondent-landlady preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, Ludhiana and challenged the findings of the trial Court on this issue. The lower appellate Court after going through the evidence on record allowed the appeal and accepted the claim of the landlady that by breaking the load bearing wall between the two shops and making a door therein, the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the property. This action had not only weakened the load bearing wall but had also resulted in reduction of its utility as the two shops could not be let out as two separate units. He also rejected the claim of the tenant that the opening in the wall had been necessitated to put out the fire in the premises on the ground that it was merely an after-thought. It was observed that not only no such claim had been made in the written statement but it was also at variance with the facts narrated in the FIR wherein it had been stated that the fire brigade people had effected entry by breaking open the shutter of one of the two shops while the shutter of other shop was held open. It is against these findings that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) SHE further pleaded that merely making a small hole in the wall or small alteration did not tantamount to materially impairing the value or utility of the property. For this purpose she placed reliance on the following authorities : L.K.K. Gafoor v. M.T. Lakshmana Mudaliar (died) and another, 1979(2) R.L.R. Page 482; Charan Singh v. Shrimati Ananti & others, 1966 P.L.R. Page 780; Gobind Ram v. Shrimati Kushalya Rani & others, 1982(1) RLR Page 288 : 1981(2) RCR (Rent) 622 (P&H)