PAUL S SANDHU, ALIAS SARABJIT SINGH PAUL SINGH SANDHU, ALIAS SURJIT PAUL SINGH SANDHU ALIAS SARJIT PAUL SINGH SANDHU Vs. SOM NATH

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.) On first two grounds of personal necessity and change of user no challenge has been made by the learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority have attained finality in that regard. The only issue on which submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner is the ground concerning material alteration (sic) the demised premises which is issue No. 4. On the issue, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller, reads as under: