SWARN SINGH Vs. PREM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose application for ejectment was dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE landlord sought ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that the tenant has constructed a Kotha in front of the workshop without the permission and consent of the petitioner and it has also diminished the utility of the premises. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent it was specifically denied and it was pleaded that the respondent is manufacturing goods in the premises in question and in order to secure the safety of the labourers and workers and the persons living in the neighbourhood the respondent has constructed a temporary shed in the demised compound about 5 years ago. The construction of the said temporary shed is very essential and necessary for the smooth working of the factory and for the protection of machinery. It was further pleaded that the construction of the said temporary shed which has tin roof has not in any way diminished the utility of the demised premises. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord, the allegations made in the written statement were not specifically controverted as such. It was reiterated that the paras of the petition are correct. The Rent Controller after going through the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent has not materially impaired the value or utility of the property and therefore he was not liable to ejectment. In appeal, the learned appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same the landlord has come up in revision in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the concurrent finding of the authorities below as to be interfered with in revision petition. In the ejectment application even, the landlord has not alleged that in what manner the construction of a Kotha has diminished the utility of the premises. Moreover, the requirement of the statute is that the acts must be such as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land. There was no such allegation in the ejectment application. Not only that, the tenant in the written statement specifically pleaded that in order to secure the safety of the labourers and workers and the persons, living in the neighbourhood, the respondent has constructed a temporary shed in the demised compound about 5 years ago. This was never specifically denied in the replication nor it was stated that in what manner the said act of the tenant was likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. Even from the evidence on record, it could not be held that in what manner the construction of a Kotha was likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. The judgment referred to above has no applicability to the facts of the present case. Mere construction of a Kotha itself could not be held to impair materially the value or the utility of the building. In each case the landlord is further required to prove that in what manner the said construction, if any, was likely to impair the utility. As stated earlier, in the present case, the landlord even did not allege in the ejectment application the manner in which it was likely to impair the utility or the value.