DR. PAUL S. SANDHU, ALIAS SARABJIT SINGH PAUL SINGH SANDHU, ALIAS SURJIT PAUL SINGH SANDHU ALIAS SARJIT PAUL SINGH SANDHU S/O DOCTOR BHAGAT SINGH THROUGH DR. BHAGAT SINGH SANDHU, FATHER AND GENERAL ATTORNEY Vs. SOM NATH S/O JEEWA RAM LRS (

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition filed under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban/Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') challenging the order dated 19.8.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jallandhar dismissing his appeal in which the order dated 5.3.1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Nawanshahar was impugned. The Rent Controller in his order had dismissed the application of the landlord -petitioner in which prayer was made for ejectment of the tenant -respondent on the grounds of personal necessity, change of user and the material alterations impairing the value and utility of the demised premises.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, which have led to filing of the present petition are that the landlord -petitioner leased the demised premises on 2.10.1960 to the tenant -respondent. A rent note of the (SIC) instant.... (SIC) instant date was executed between the parties wherein it has been recorded that three rooms are being given on rent to the tenant -respondent. The landlord -petitioner filed an application on 15.3.1982 alleging that the demised premises were required for his personal use and occupation. The other ground taken was that the tenant -respondent had put the demised premises to a use different than the one for which it was leased to him. Still another ground pleaded in the application was that there are material alterations caused by the tenant -respondent by removing the central wall converting three rooms into two and thereby impairing the value and utility of the building. The Rent Controller, Nawanshahar rejected all the three grounds by recording findings that the demised premises were not required for personal use and occupation of the landlord -petitioner; and that there was no change of user attracting the provisions of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. Even the third ground that there was material alteration, did not find favour with the Rent Controller.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority affirmed aforesaid finding on Issue No. 4 concluding that there was no evidence to conclude that the tenant -respondent had converted three rooms into two by removing the central wall and the door about a year prior to the filing of the ejectment petition. It was further held that no cogent evidence had been produced on the record by the landlord -petitioner to substantiate any structural alteration by the tenant -respondent. The statement made by the tenant as RW4 and the statement of Ved Parkash, PW2 were taken into consideration to affirm the finding of the Rent Controller.