MADAN LAL Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) MADAN Lal, son of Dr. Amin Chand, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant, Madan Lal, inter alia on the grounds that he had changed the user of the premises, in question, and had, thus impaired their value and utility materially. According to the landlord, the premises were given on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- vide rent note dated April 19, 1971, Exhibit P-3, for his personal occupation whereas now he was not residing therein; rather he was using them for the residence of his servants and business purposes. He had effected material alteration in the premises inasmuch as he had been using the kitchen as a bath-room/urinal; hence he had materially impaired their value and utility. In the written statement, the said allegations were controverted by the tenant. It was admitted by him that the premises were taken on rent for the residence. It was maintained that he was still using the same for his personal use and occupation. It was denied that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the building as alleged. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had changed the user of the premises and that he had also effected material alterations and materially impaired their value and utility. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.