KALAWATI DEVI Vs. NEMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlords against the judgment dated 8.3.1978 of the Appellate Authority, Narnaul.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the landlords made an application for ejectment on the ground that the latter had made various changes in the shop on account of which its value had been materially impaired. It was contested by the tenant who pleaded that the repairs had been made with their consent and that the value of the shop had not been impaired.

(3.) THE only question that arises for determination is as to 'whether the tenant had made such changes in the shop, which had materially impaired its value'. The changes which have been made by the tenant, inter alia are opening of an additional door in the shop thus, connecting the staircase with the shop, and removal of walls supporting the roof and replacing them by beams. It is not disputed that the shop was a three-khanas shop and the tenant removed the walls separating the khanas and instead thereof made beams and supported the roof on those beams. Iqbal Singh Draftsman A.W.4 stated that the value of the shop had been diminished as the walls intervening the khanas were stronger than the beams which had been constructed by the tenant. After reading the statement, no doubt is left in my mind that value of the shop has been materially impaired on account of the said structural change. It is agreed between the learned counsel that though the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Punjab Act') has been replaced in Haryana by the Haryana Urban (Control or Rent Eviction) Act, 1973, but in this case the former will be applicable. Section 13(2)(ii) of he Punjab Act provides that the tenant is liable to ejectment if he has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value of the building. This section has been interpreted by this Court in various cases. A similar matter came up before me in Bawa Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Wati and others, 1980(2) R.C.R. 492. In that case the tenant had constructed a partly pucca and partly wooden partition in one of the rooms and had converted a window into a door. It was held "that if any material alteration has been made which changes the nature of the property, then the impairment of the value and utility of the building is to be seen from the point of view of the landlords." Consequently, the order of ejectment passed by the learned Appellate Authority was upheld. The matter was later referred to a Divisional Bench of this Court in Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories and another, ILR 1982 (sic) Punjab and Haryana 462. In that case, the front and back verandahs had been closed and a window was converted into a door. The learned Bench, after noticing various judgments, held that by making the aforesaid changes the utility of the building had been materially impaired. The relevant observations of the learned Bench as extracted in the head note read as follows :