NATHA SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed on behalf of the landlord-petitioner against the order of the appellate authority, Jullundur, dated April 1, 1975, whereby the tenant's appeal was accepted and the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was set aside.

(2.) Natha Singh petitioner filed an application for ejectment of the respondent from the plot in dispute which was given on rent at Rs. 40/- per month. The only ground which subsists in this petition is whether the tenant is liable to ejectment because he has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). In the application for ejectment, it has been averred that the tenant has completely changed the premises in dispute which was originally let out to the respondent and he has without any authority of the petitioner made unauthorised constructions and also damaged the hand pump completely and installed a tubewell there. It has been specifically averred that the respondent has diminished the utility of the premises by its use in a manner as stated above. In reply, the respondent has pleaded that he has not illegally and without any authority made the alleged changes in the premises in dispute. It was also denied that the respondent has damaged four walls of the premises in dispute as alleged. It has been averred that the respondent has spent thousands of rupees in improving the premises in dispute. However, in the application filed on behalf of the petitioner these allegations of the tenant were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

(3.) The learned Rent Controller after going through the whole evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent has completely impaired the utility of the building in question by making alterations of far reaching nature and by completely altering the nature of the building, he has rendered himself liable to ejectment from the premises in question. It has also been held by the Rent Controller that the respondent had no authority to construct any building in the premises in question and having demolished the half built room which was in existence at the start of the tenancy and having placed beams of the rooms on the four walls which were in existence at the start of the tenancy he has completely altered the nature of the building and has thus impaired the utility of the premises in question in so far as the landlord is concerned. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Rent Controller, the tenant-respondent went up in appeal before the appellate authority where the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and the application was dismissed. The learned appellate authority took the view that the sheds constructed by the tenant on the vacant portion for the purpose of his poultry business cannot be called for a permanent nature. Moreover, it has also been held that when the property had been let out for running a poultry farm, the tenant had to make some provision for keeping the poultry and birds could not be left in the open. According to him a tenant is certainly authorised to make additions and alterations of a temporary nature for his convenience. Feeling aggrieved against this order the landlord has come up in revision petition to this Court.