KANWALJIT Vs. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom an eviction order has been passed by both the Authorities below. Respondent-landlady who is the owner of the premises in dispute, filed an ejectment petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the tenant (petitioner herein) on the ground that the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 275/- per month w. e. f. 1. 6. 1979 to 31. 7. 1979 and Rs. 68. 75 p. as house tax. The ejectment was also sought on the ground that the tenant has changed the purpose f tenancy. The premises were given to the petitioner for running small lathe machine for the purpose of repair works, whereas, the petitioner has installed a furnace therefor melting and moulding the metal without he written consent of the respondent ; that the tenant-petitioner has also impaired the value and utility of the building in dispute by making material alterations in the premises by converting the shed into rooms and further construction without the consent of respondent-landlady. It was also alleged that the tenant has made unauthorised construction in the premises, and used the same recklessly which impaired the value and utility of the premises.

(2.) THE petition was contested by the tenant who, on the first date of hearing, tendered the arrears of rent. Rest of the allegations were controverted.

(3.) ON the basis of evidence produced by the parties to the ejectment petition, the Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment against the tenant on the ground that he has impaired the value and utility of the premises by making material alterations without the written consent of the landlady as well as on the ground that the tenant has changed the user of the premises from repair works to that of manufacturing. This order was challenged by the tenant in an appeal before the appellate Authority, who though affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller in respect of change of user, but set aside the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of tenant having impaired the value and utility of the premises. The tenant has impugned the orders of both the authorities below by way of this revision petition.