RAM CHAND Vs. GORA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlord Ram Chand filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on account of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of having effected material alterations leading to impairment in the value and utility of the premises. The Rent Controller by an order dated 10.4.1981 dismissed the ejectment petition. In the aforesaid context, it would be pertinent to mention that after the tender made by the tenant before the Rent Controller, the issue on account of non-payment of rent did not survive and the only contesting issue adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller was in respect of the alleged alterations made by the respondent- tenant, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises.

(2.) DISSATISFIED with the order passed by the Rent Controller on 10.4.1981, the petitioner-landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Patiala. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 13.10.1983. Through the instant petition, the petitioner-landlord has impugned the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority.

(3.) IT is not a matter of dispute that the only factual assertion on the basis of the which the landlord claimed material impairment was the construction of tin shed and an almirah by the respondent-tenant at the entrance of the premises in question. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have arrived at the conclusion that the tin shed was a temporary structure and that the almirah was only placed in front of the premises and was not attached to any part of the building leased out by the petitioner-landlord to the respondent-tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord was asked to point out any evidence that may have been adduced on behalf of the petitioner-landlord in order to establish that the tin shed was a permanent structure or that the almirah was permanently fixed at the entrance of the premises in question. However, no evidence could be brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of which a conclusion different to that arrived at by the courts below could be drawn. For the reasons recorded above, I find no justification to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.