JASWANT SINGH Vs. DEWAN CHAND PESHWARIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed against him by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, who had reversed the decision of the Rent Controller in the ejectment petition filed by Dewan Chand against the petitioner and his correspondents.

(2.) In a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the landlord claimed the eviction of the tenants on various grounds, namely default in payment of arrears of rent, commission of acts which are likely to impair the value and utility of the demised building and the conversion of the user of the premises. The petition was resisted by the tenant who controverted the above allegations. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Rent Controller held that the landlord had not brought on the record sufficient material to vouchsafe finding that the value and utility of the premises had been materially diminished. One of the reasons for coming to this conclusion was that no expert had been examined by the landlord. The Rent Controller, however, omitted to consider the crucial point of controversy between the parties as to whether the tenant had constructed second chhappar in the courtyard of the premises without the permission of the landlord. It was this point which was considered by the Appellate Authority who came to the finding that the premises were given to the petitioner with only one chhappar measuring 25' x 12' in the Courtyard of the premises. It has further been found that the petitioner had constructed a second chhappar 20' x 12' without the consent of the landlord and while doing so he had taken support of the main wall of the existing room of the shop. From this circumstance the Appellate Authority concluded that the tenant had not only made a change in the user of premises but by the construction of second unauthorised chhappar, the light, air and area of the courtyard had been reduced which in turn had impaired the utility and value of the property.

(3.) During the course of arguments in this revision petition, the main point which has been mooted is as to whether the construction of the second chhappar had, in fact, been made or not and secondly if so, has the same materially affected the value and utility of the demised building. In so far as the first point is concerned, though the petitioner in his written statement has taken up this stand that only one chhappar was in existence but he was subsequently obliged to admit even in his own statement before the Rent Controller that there were two chhappars in the premises. No further probe is, therefore, required in this matter. We then come to the only other point as to whether by constructing the second chhappar the value and utility of the premises has been impaired or not. In order to satisfy myself on this point, I directed the parties to file affidavits as to how the support for the second new chhappar had been obtained. The respondent filed an affidavit that the second unauthorised chhappar was constructed by obtaining support from the main wall of the shop by making holes into the wall and placing balas therein. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has tried to evade this issue and has referred to other matters which are not material for the determination of the present controversy. After considering the entire evidence produced by the parties and their respective affidavits filed in this Court I find that the conclusion of the Appellate Authority is quite correct. It is of no avail to argue that the chhappar is a temporary construction and can be removed at a later stage. As already observed, the chhappar is sufficiently large one and by constructing the same ventilation to the courtyard as also the area of the same has been considerably reduced. This construction having been made without the consent of the landlord, the petitioner-tenant has invited his eviction from the premises. I have no hesitation in affirming the findings, of the Appellate Authority on this point.