JAGMANDER DASS JAIN Vs. HARI KISHAN SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the present revision petition filed by Shri Jagmander Dass Jain and another (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The landlord field an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against M/s Hari Kishan Sushil Kumar respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) for eviction of the latter from the shop situated in Moga Mandi on various grounds some of which have become redundant or not relevant for the purpose of the present revision petition. The ground of default is no longer in dispute, the arrears of rent having been duly deposited along with costs et cetera on the first date of hearing. The only ground which has been canvassed seriously and is in fact the bone of contention in the present revision petition is as to whether the tenant has committed such acts which have or are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the demised premises. So far as the Rent Controller is concerned he found the above mentioned grounds for eviction established against the tenant and therefore, the tenant was ordered to be evicted from the demised premised, though they were allowed three months time to do so. The tenant took the matter in appeal to the Appellate Authority which authority, however, took a different view of the matter and hold that even though certain alteration and construction unauthorisedly made by the tenant were proved, they did not result in material impairment in the value and utility of the shop in question. The decision of the Rent, controller was therefore set aside and the eviction application of the landlord was dismissed. The present revision petition seeks to impugn this order of the appellate Authority.

(3.) A brief factual sketch is necessary in order to understand the controversy in the present case. For this purpose, reference can be usefully made to the plan Exhibit A/1 of the demised premised in regard to which there is hardly any dispute. As the plan would indicate, after the Ahata on the southern side, there is the shop portion consisting of three rooms in a row. In front of these rooms is a verandah and in front of the verandah there is an front of the verandah there is an open space which is referred to as a Thara. As noticed even by the Appellate Authority, the tenant had constructed a pucca structure covering practically the entire length and breadth of the said Thara. The structure consisted of a cemented floor enclosed by brick walls on the Eastern and Western sides. The Northern side of the same had been kept open. The shed which was so constructed was roofed with corrugated sheets. Inside the shed urinal had been constructed. The roof of the shed was about 4 feet higher in level than the level of the demised shop with the result that the shop was not visible from the courtyard side of the Mandi. The grievance of the landlord is that by making this construction without his consent or authority, the tenant had caused diminution of light and air to the demised shop and had thus impaired its value and utility. The last mentioned allegation was, however, controverted. On behalf of the tenant it has also come in evidence that during the pendency of this litigation, the Municipal Committee had demolished the unauthorised construction raised by the tenant on the Thara in front of the shop. That fact however would not make any difference in so far as the ground for eviction is concerned what has to be seen is whether the tenant had committed such acts which are likely to impair the value and utility of the demised premises and the mere fact that he may have rectified the position later on either himself or the same was achieved through the agency of the Municipal Committee, would make no difference in so far as the liability of the tenant is concerned.