SHAM LAL Vs. HARBANS LAL SABARWAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of the tenants from the shop bearing house-tax No. 5577, situated in Saudagar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. It was alleged that the premises, in question, were let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- besides Rs. 2/- as the water-tax payable to the Cantonment Board. His eviction therefrom was sought on the ground that the landlord required the same for carrying out the building work for the reason that it had been burnt down and had disappeared altogether as a result of the devastating fire on June 1, 1972, and as such, the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He required the same for reconstruction. It was also pleaded that the tenants had committed such acts during the period the premises remained in their possession as impaired materially the value and utility thereof. According to the landlord, the tenants, without his permission, in writing, made structural alterations inasmuch as after the building was burnt down, they put up improvised structure with galvanised corrugated iron sheets' roof. The building was originally double-storeyed one. The upper storey had fallen down completely; even the roof of the shop had also fallen. In the written statement, the tenants denied that the premises had become unfit unsafe for human habitation. It was asserted that they were carrying on the business after repairing it and that it was not completely burnt down, as alleged though it was damaged to some extent which had been repaired. They also denied that they had impaired materially the value and utility of the premises, in question. They admitted that a fire had broken out on June 4, 1972, in Saudagar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. and that the shop, in dispute, was also damaged along with other shops in the vicinity. They had only fixed galvanised corrugated iron sheets on the roof which had been damaged; otherwise the said shop was not unfir or unsafe for human habitation. According to them, the malba of the upper storey was removed by the landlord himself and he consented to the placing of the tin-sheets on the roof of the shop, in dispute. The learned Rent Controller found that the shop, in dispute, was neither unfit or unsafe for human habitation. However, it was found that since the tenants had put up the tin-sheets on the roof instead of the original roof fit for a double storey building; the pillars had also been raised and the roof stood practically on one wall only instead of the three walls as before, these acts on the part of the tenants had changed the material structure of the building, in question, and had, thus, materially impaired its value and utility. On the basis of the said finding, the eviction order was passed against the tenants. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against them. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.