BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. J L KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has come up before us for decision keeping in view the conflict of decisions of this Court in Siri Ram v. Smt. Shila Rani, (1982) 84 P. L. R. 591 and Sadhu Ram v. Niranjan Dass. , (1983) 85 P. L. R. 73. In the former case the Hon'ble Judge took the view that unauthorised construction by a tenant would itself amount to material impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises. On the other hand in Sadhu Ram's case (Supra) the view taken is that any construction raised by the tenant by itself would not entitle the landlord to claim his ejectment unless it is further proved that such a construction has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.

(2.) IT would be expedient to collate the facts as found on appreciation of evidence by the authorities below and not challenged during the course of arguments.

(3.) THE tenant took a shed measuring 30' X 17' on lease for running an industrial unit. He covered the open space on the back of the shed, removed the weight bearing back wall; the weight of the sheets of the shed is on the wall as no pillars have been constructed and removed the grill in the common wall. It was found that the tenant made material structural alterations in the premises in dispute. The floor of the shed was also broken. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the material structural alterations brought about by the tenant have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. Thus, the tenant is liable to be ejected.