CHATAR SAIN Vs. BISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is by the tenant and arose out of eviction proceedings under the circumstances, stated as under:

(2.) MR . S. P. Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, assailed the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that he (the Petitioner) had made material alterations in the premises which had the effect of impairing its utility and contended (a) that it could not be held on the evidence present on record that the Petitioner had removed the frame of the door from its original position and had then fixed the same in the wall erected just on the side of the road and had thereby included the verandah into the shop; (b) that the Respondents did not state in the eviction application that the construction raised by the Petitioner had impaired the utility of the premises; and (c) that the said construction including the verandah into the shop could not be considered to be material alteration and the same might be taken as improvement of the premises, but could not be said to impair the utility of the premises. I have not been able to agree with him.

(3.) THE relevant provision which allows eviction of the tenant from the premises for impairing the utility of the same is contained in Clause (iii) of Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, and reads thus,