MAYA DEVI Vs. SIRI NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , has been filed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated February 23, 1976, whereby the order Rent Controller was reversed and the petition for ejectment dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner-landlord filed this petition for ejectment of the respondent-tenant on several grounds but only two grounds were pressed ore me at the time of arguments, namely, that the tenant had blocked the passage of the water flowing from the sprouts of the adjoining house the landlord by placing wooden logs along with the wall and construe a shed which had caused damage to the property of the landlord and persons and that the tenant had constructed a room on the vacant without his permission and thereby changed the user of the property.

(3.) On the above said two grounds, the Appellate Authority, after through the evidence of the parties held that that vacant land in dispute was leased out more than 20 years back and since then the tenant had been stacking wooden logs. As regards the construction of the shed which was temporary in nature it was held that the flow of the water had not in any way been obstructed and the plea of nuisance was consequently negatived. As for the construction of the room, it was found that the same had been built more than 20 years back and the landlord after making a written application got the electric connection fitted in that room. This finding obviously means that the room had been constructed prior to the enforcement of the Rent Act which was enforced some time in the year 1965 and that the landlord would be deemed to have consented in writing to the said construction by making a written application for electric connection. All findings of the Appellate Authority are essentially findings of fact and as held in M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangasmamy Chettiar, 1980 AIR(SC) 1253, this Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere with those findings merely because it nay reach at a different conclusion on re-appraisal of the evidence.