ROSHAN LAL Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 3639 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 it tenant's petition again 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. 1V -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 then there Was no finding on the record that the construction of the said Parchhatis has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. According to the Learned Counsel the expert evidence of AW3, Sat Dev, produced by the landlord, the weight of 5 to 7 Lbs. has been placed an the waits because of these Parchhatis and if it is so 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, 1981 (2) R.C.R. 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 the three Parchhatis the value and utility of the building has been materially impaired and is support of his contention he referred to Om Parkash v. Shri Anand Swamp, (1980) 82 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.