LAL CHAND AGGARWAL AND SONS Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlords' revision petition. Landlords sought ejectment of the tenant on a number of grounds but the only ground that survives in this revision petition is whether the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The tenant had denied the allegation of impairing the value and utility. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant from the shop on the ground that he had impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute inasmuch as by making the door opened towards the street which earlier used to open in the shop coupled with construction of a parchati.

(2.) ON appeal by the tenant, the order of ejectment was set aside after the Appellate Authority came to a conclusion that construction of a parchati could not be said to have impaired the value and utility of the demised premises to such an extent as to warrant ejectment. It was also found that the inconsistent and unreliable testimony of the landlords was not sufficient to return a finding that the parchati had been constructed by the tenant. It may, however, be observed that the Appellate Authority did not mention anything about the change of the main gate.

(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel. I find myself unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller, passed the order of ejectment after concluding that the parchati constructed by the tenant as also by making the door open towards the street, the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the premises. The finding of the Rent Controller in regard to parchati has been set aside. The Rent Controller did not discuss the effect of the change of door. Even for the sake of argument if it is accepted that the tenant has made the door open towards the street which earlier used to open within the shop, in my view, this alone would not be an act on the part of the tenant which would amount to materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. No structural alteration has been made in shop in dispute and thus in my opinion it cannot be said that the acts of the tenant are such which warrant a finding that he has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.