GOBIND RAM Vs. SHRIMATI KAUSHALYA RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gobind Ram, tenant-petitioner, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated August 4, 1976 whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dated February 28, 1974 dismissing the ejectment application filed by Smt. Kaushalya Rani, landlady-respondent, was set aside and the order of eviction was passed against the tenant.

(2.) The rented premises consist of a shop, which is on rent with Gobind Ram, tenant petitioner, w.e.f. February, 1, 1966, at the monthly rent of Rs. 35/- vide rent note dated February 7, 1966, Exhibit A, 1. The shop was given for the purpose of tailoring business. The landlady sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he had violated the terms and conditions of the rent deed inasmuch as he had constructed a gallery without the permission of the landlady and sub let the demised premises to Gurnam Singh and others, respondents Nos. 2 to 4. It was further alleged that the tenant had constructed a ventilator in the demised shop and had changed the door thereof from inside to outside without her consent and in her absence and, thus, he had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. In question In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these allegations were controverted. It was denied that he contravened the terms of the tenancy or had made any addition or alteration in the demised premises. The construction of the ventilator and the change of the door of the demised shop were also denied and it was further pleaded that even the alleged change had not materially impaired the value and utility of the property, in question. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to the Appellate Authority, the tenant had constructed a parchhatti which did not exist in the year 1964 when the plan was prepared and, thus, he has impaired materially the value and utility of the demised premises. This finding according to the learned counsel, is illegal even if it be assumed that the said parchhatti was constructed by the tenant petitioner because in the circumstances of this case, it has not materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. It was further submitted that there was no specific allegation in the ejectment application as to the construction of any such parchhatti, nor was it ever made a ground of ejectment even in the notice which was issued prior to the filing of' the ejectment application. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Sucha Singh Kabari v. Brij Lal, 1980 1 RentLR 124, Charan Singh v. Smt. Ananti and others,1966 68 PunLR 780 and Anup Chand and others v. Tarlok Singh, 1977 2 RCR(Rent) 121. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlady-respondent, submitted that whether the tenant had impaired materially the value or utility of the premises is a question of fact and, therefore, this finding of the Appellate Authority cannot be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, any construction made by the tenant without the permission of the landlord would amount to impairing materially the value or utility of the building because it is to be seen from the landlord's point of view whether the said construction has impaired materially the value or utility of the demised premises, or not. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Smt. Nirmala v. Ishwar Chander, 1981 83 PunLR 263, Jaswant Singh v. Dewa Chand Reshwaria and others, 1981 1 RCR(Rent) 332, Jagmander Dass and another v. M/s. Hari Kishan Sushil Kumar, 1981 1 RCR(Rent) 489, Brij Transport Co, Pvt, Ltd. v. Brij Bhushan Lal, 1974 RCR(Rent) 222 and Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories, 1981 CurLJ 414.