GURANDITTA MAL Vs. GIAN MITTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for seeking ejectment of the respondent-petitioner from the shop defined as demised premises in the application filed before the Rent Controller. The ejectment has been sought on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 1.7.1971 at the rate of Rs. 75/- P.M. and the other ground is that the respondent has made material alteration in the demised shop by raising cabin in front of the shop, resultantly, impairing the light and the air to be enjoyed in respect of the demised premises.

(2.) THE petition was contested. However, rent has been tendered and the said ground did not remain available to the landlord. The parties led evidence so far as the second ground is concerned. It has been noticed by the Rent Controller that in respect of the construction of the kacha Cabin in front of the shop, a notice had been received by him from the Municipal Committee, copy of which has been exhibited as Ex. A-6 and that in pursuant thereto, the said cabin has been demolished by the Municipal Committee during the pendency of the application before the Rent Controller. This fact has been noticed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller dismissed the application accordingly.

(3.) THE order dated 7.1.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority has been made subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that infact no alteration has been made in the shop as is evident from the fact that a notice had been issued by the Municipal Committee for removing the cabin which was constructed in front of the demised premises and that the said cabin was demolished by the Municipal Committee in pursuant to the notice received by him. Thus, the Appellate Authority has fallen into error by still holding that the value and utility of the demised premises has been materially impaired on account stoppage of light and/or on account of the construction of cabin in front of the demised premises. The factum of demolition of cabin has been noticed by the Appellate Authority, yet it has been held that the material impairment has been caused. It is the settled law that the facts which emerge on account of change during the pendency of the application before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority, can be noticed by the forums and the relief should be granted accordingly.