BAIJ NATH Vs. SHAIL KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') challenging order dated 8.5.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana dismissing his appeal. In the appeal order dated 5.5.1975 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, was impugned who had recorded a finding of fact that the tenant-petitioner had carried material alteration of the demised premises and its value and utility has been reduced. Therefore, he was held liable to be ejected under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary to decide the legal controversy raised in the present petition are that the landlady-respondent filed an ejectment application against the tenant-petitioner on 27.1.1971 alleging that the tenant-petitioner has demolished the shop, chabutra, stair case and was preparing to reconstruct the same according to his own volition. It was alleged that no sanction was obtained from the Municipal Committee and even no consent was obtained from the landlady-respondent. Further allegation levelled in the petition is that inspite of an ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Court in the civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the tenant-petitioner from rebuilding/reconstructing the shop under his tenancy, the tenant-petitioner had rebuilt and reconstructed the shop and Chabutra in front of the stair case which has resulted in the impairment of the value of the property and has diminished its utility. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller, framed the following issues :

(3.) THE afore-mentioned finding recorded by the Rent Controller was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the argument raised by the tenant-petitioner that the construction raised was of wooden planks and can be removed was negatived. The finding further recorded by both the Courts below is that the passage to go on the first floor through the stair-case was permentnly blocked by putting a roof on the stair-case and the same was in violation of the express stipulation in the Rent Note that the landlady-respondent would be free to use the passage and the roof.