SURAJ BHAN Vs. DIWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that he has caused such acts which have materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord has sought ejectment on the ground that the tenant has constructed a partition wall inside the room, water tank and a drain which acts have materially impaired the value and utility of the disputed premises. To prove such impairment, the landlord has examined building expert AW1 Dhanna Singh. The tenant has examined another expert RW4 Kehar Singh. Apart from such experts, the parties have stepped into the witness-box as their own witnesses and also produced other oral evidences.

(3.) TO prove that the tenant has constructed a wall which has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, the expert of the landlord has stated that the wall has been built on the pucca floor of cement and concrete of the shop. It has no foundation. There is no inter-gripping teething with both the walls of the room on either side. This wall is 9 inches thick and has got no connection with the lintel at the roof level as well. A perusal of the said statement would show that the wall has been raised by the tenant without any foundation and is not permanently fixed in the adjoining wall as well. The said wall even does not touch the roof. Therefore, the said wall is a temporary wall and it cannot be said that such construction has impaired the value and utility of the building. In fact, the witness produced by the tenant shows that such wall can be dismantled at a nominal cost of Rs. 40/-. Therefore, mere construction of a wall, which is temporary and can be removed at a nominal cost, cannot be said to impair the value and utility of the building.