BAWA SINGH Vs. SMT. PUSHPA WATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Bawa Singh, tenant, against the order of the appellate Authority, dated January, 1, 1979.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Shrimati Pushpa Wati is the owner of the property. Bawa Singh is a tenant under her on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 she moved an application for ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the ground that he had made certain alterations in the building by which the value and utility of the premises had been diminished and he had sublet a part of the building to Rakha Singh for a tea shop. The application was contest by the tenant, who controverted the aforesaid allegations. The learned Rent Controller, decided both the matters against the tenant and consequently ordered his ejectment. He went up in appeal before the appellate Authority. The main point urged before that authority was that no material alterations had been made in the building by which its value authority had been impaired. The learned appellate Authority decided this matter against the tenant. In view of the aforesaid findings, he dismissed the appeal. The tenant has come up in revision against the order of the appellate Authority to this Court.

(3.) The only question that arises for determination is as to whether any construction has been made in the building by the tenant by which its value or utility has been impaired. It is not disputed that the tenant had constructed a partly pucca and partly wooden partition in one of the rooms and that he had converted a window into a door. It is further in the evidence that the door has been opened on a main road. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the aforesaid acts, the value and utility of the building has not been impaired. He further submits that the learned Appellate Authority though held that he made material alternations in the property, did not give any finding that he had impaired the value and utility of the building. According to the counsel, in the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the appellate Authority is liable to be set aside.