PURAN CHAND Vs. WALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application for eviction was filed by Wali Ram, respondent against the present petitioner regarding two shops before the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, on the grounds of non payment of arrears of rent as well as material alteration an impairment of the premises adversely effecting the utility of the same. Arrears of rent were paid on first hearing and this ground was given up by the landlord. The petition was allowed on the other ground and order of eviction was passed. The appeal by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, Sangrur having failed, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The admitted facts are that petitioner got the two shops in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 18 on 26th of Feb. 1960 from the respondent and lease deed, Exhibit A. 2, was executed. Therefore on 22nd of May, 1970 second lease deed, Exhibit A. 4, was executed and the monthly rent was increased to Rs. 42.50. According to the landlord at the time of the execution of both the lease deeds there was no upper storey on either of the two shops and there as a small sized Bhatti one room but the tenant opened two big apertures in the roofs and also constructed a big Bhatti in another room. Besides a Choubara was also constructed on one of the shops. All these alterations and additions were brought about by the tenant without any consent from the landlord. The perusal of both the rent deeds, Exhibits A. 3, and A. 4 clearly shows that there was no upper storey on any of the shops at the time when these lease deeds were executed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Choubara on one of the shops was constructed after the first lease deed and before the second lease deed and that was one of the reasons for enhancement of the rent from Rs. 18 to Rs. 42.50. The opening of the aperture and the installation of a Bhatti is not denied. The further allegation of the landlord that in between the two shops one gate has been opened it is also not denied. After discussing the entire evidence on record, both, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, have returned finding that Choubara was constructed by the tenant-petitioner without the consent of the landlord. It was also found that a Bhatti had been built in another room and further that aperture had been opened and gave way between the two shops had been brought into existence by the tenant. These are findings of facts which are based on assessment of evidence on the record. Nothing has been brought out to disturb this finding.

(3.) It is dismissed with no order as to costs.