OM PAL Vs. ANAND SWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Om Pal petitioner tenant has been evicted in consequence of an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, filed by Anand Swarup respondent-landlord essentially on the ground that he (tenant) has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises which is a shop being utilised for Dry cleaning business. The allegation is that the tenant had constructed a wooden balcony in the room of the shop which balcony (at some places it is described as parchhatti) had put additional weight on the supporting walls. There were other allegations also, namely, that two doors had been converted into show cases and a mantelpiece had been demolished. These latter allegations, however, did not impress the Courts below as being sufficient ground for eviction. The petitioner had come up in revision against the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority in this behalf.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that the construction of the balcony inside the shop would not amount to material impairment of the value and utility of the premises. The main contention is that this balcony is more of a temporary nature and can be easily dismantled, whenever required. After considering the evidence on the record, I find that the contention of the learned counsel cannot prevail. Plan R.I. produced on behalf of the petitioner, itself gives the dimension of the balcony as roughly 12' x 4'-10' with a manhole in it, obviously for the purpose of somebody to reach the balcony area. Mr. Hari Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an Expert produced on his behalf had stated that the balcony had the support of wooden balas which had been fixed in the walls and it would not, therefore, in any way materially impair the building. The submission is without force and must be rejected. Once a balcony has been constructed, there is no limit to the amount of weight which may be placed thereon during the course of the business of the petitioner. In fact, the argument of the learned counsel that only some clothes would be stored on the balcony is not tenable, as there is no such evidence on the record. Mr. Hari Mittal has cited certain authorities to show that minor alterations in the building for the due enjoyment of the property would not tantamount to material impairments. There is no quarrel with this proposition at all. However, in the case in hand, it is not a minor alteration but a substantial structural change in the building. Again, the fact that the wooden balcony has been constructed with the support of nuts and bolts, would also not make any difference to the position. With modern technique, the construction of even a multi-storeyed building has been made possible by the use of fabrication with steal material, including nuts and bolts. Moreover the two authorities below have become to a concurrent finding after considering the evidence produced by the parties, that the balcony in question tantamount to material impairment of the value and utility of the premises and I do not see any reason to interfere with this finding in the present Revision Petition.

(3.) The Revision petition is consequently, dismissed but with no order as to costs. The petitioner is said to be running his business in the premises in dispute. Even though he has utilised enough time earlier, he is allowed one month's time more from today for vacating the premises, subject of course to the fact that he pays all the arrears of rent, if any, to the landlord within fifteen days from today. If these arrears are not cleared within the stipulated period of fifteen days, the concession of time to vacate the premises will be deemed to have been withdrawn.