LAKHMI CHAND Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order has been passed in appeal.

(2.) HIRA Lal, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant Kundan Lal from the shop in dispute, alleging that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by raising the height of the shop in disputer by four/five feet without his consent and also placing a shutter in place of the wooden door, as also constructing a slab in the middle of the shop. During the pendency of the application before the Rent Controller, Kundan Lal, tenant, died and his legal representatives were brought on record who are now the petitioners. In the written statement, the allegations of the landlord were controverted. It was pleaded that whatever the construction was made was done with the consent of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had failed to establish the allegations made by him and further to prove how the said alterations had resulted in the deterioration of the shop in dispute. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that from the evidence on record it was clearly proved that the changes brought by the tenant in the shop in dispute were material changes having been effected without the written consent of the landlord. Consequently, eviction order was passed. Aggrieved with that, the tenants have filed this petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence on record. In the ejectment application it was specifically pleaded by the landlord that the tenant, without his permission, had raised the height of the roof by four/five feet, but in the Written Statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was specifically denied as such rather, the plea taken was that whatever alterations were made, the same were done with the con sent of the landlord. Thus, the tenant failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence that the alternations were made with the consent of the landlord. The Appellate Authority mainly relied on the report of the Local Commissioner (Ex. AW 511) according to which the roof of the shop hold fallen down and the walls were newly plastered. It has also come in evidence that there are other shops of the landlord adjoining shop in dispute and the roof of the shop in dispute has been raised by the tenant to an extent of four/five feet in comparison to the other shops. Thus, it was concluded by the Appellate Authority that the structural changes made by the tenant in this case had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises as the landlord cannot construct the second floor over the shop in dispute along with the other shops. Though the tenant has also placed the shutter in place of the wooden door as also a slab has been constructed in the middle of the shop but the most material alteration which has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises is the raising of the height of the shop in dispute by four/five feet. On these facts, it could not be successfully argued that the tenant had not materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety with the finding of the Appellate Authority so as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.