ROSHAN LAL Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 2639 of 1983 and 441 of 1984, as both of them arise out of the same judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 21st September, 1981.

(2.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom order of eviction has been passed by both the authorities below. The ejectment of Roshan Lal tenant is being sought from one room in house No. B. IV-740 Wait Ganj, Ludhiana. The said room was rented out to the tenant vide rent-note dated 25th February 1959, Exhibit A-3, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The tenancy started from Ist March, 1959. The application for ejectment was filed on 16th December, 1977 on the following grounds:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that even if it be assumed that the three Parchhatis were constructed by the tenant after the premises were let out to him, even that then was no finding on the record that the construction for the said Parchhatis has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. According to the learned counsel the expert evidence of AW5, Sat Dev, produced by the landlord, the weight of 5 to 7 lbs has been placed on the walls because of these Parchhatis and if it isso then it cannot be held that it has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of this contention he relied on Gobind Ram v. Shrimati Kaushalya Rani and others, 1981 (2) Rent Control Reporter 621. On the other hand learned counsel for the landlord submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that by constructing three Parchhatis the value and utility of the building has been materially impaired and in support of his contention he referred to Om parkash Vs. Shri Anand Swarup, 1980 P.L.R. (S.N.) 11. Further it has been urged that it being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. It was further argued that according to the plea of the tenant the said parchhatis were in existence when the premises were let out to him, whereas it has been found that it was the tenant who constructed the Parchhatis and therefore, a false plea was taken by the tenant.