MANOHAR LAL Vs. NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner (deceased) filed this revision. petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, dated 24th January, 1975, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing has ejectment was maintained.

(2.) The landlord sought ejectment of his tenant on the ground, in alia, that the tenant had made some illegal and unauthorised constructions and alterations in the premises by constructing bath-room etc. and by closing an arch of the verandah and door a shown in read colour in the plan attached with the application and, thus, committed acts which are likely to diminish or impair materially the value and utility of the building. The tenant contested the ejectment-application and stated that he had not made any unauthorised construction nor has made any alterations that bath-room was in existence in the tenanted portion ; that the bath-room was constructed by the landlord himself and it was not constructed by him ; that previously the bath-room had no door and he had only fixed a new door in the bath-room and the fixing of the door does not impair the value and utility of the building. In the alternative, he also pleaded that even if he has made the aforesaid constructions and alterations, they will not impair materially the value or utility of the house. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the construction of the bath-room on the floor of the verandah already existing without touching the house as such does not impair the value or utility of the building. Moreover the construction of a bath-room was a-bare necessity for the proper and comfortable living of the tenant as there was no bath-room existing earlier in the rented premises. Apart from that all this was done with the consent of the landlord. As a matter of fact, he himself allowed the fixing of the water taps at that place. In any case, the alleged construction is easily removable without any expense. Under these circumstances and on the facts which have been found by the authorities below, it has been wrongly held that the said act is likely to impair the value or utility of the building as contemplated in section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In support of his contention, he has referred to Dr. Jai Gopal Gupta and others v. Bodh Mal, 1969 RCJ 717; Mohinder Singh v. Om Parkash and others, 1978 2 RCR(Rent) 401; and certain other authorities in this respect.