RAM PARKASH Vs. CHANDER BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ejectment application was filed by the landlord Chander Bhan on May 17, 1971, for the eviction of the tenant Ram Parkash from the shop in dispute, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. According to the landlord, the shop, as originally, rented out to the tenant, had a door opening on the chabutra. Thereafter, the tenant removed the door and two kolas on either side of the said doors and had joined the chabutra with the front room and had covered the same with RCC roof. He shifted the door just at the end of the chabutra. The building had become totally different than which was originally rented out to him. The tenant by joining the chabutra in front of the shop, had materially impaired the utility of the building. He had done so without the consent of the landlord. In the written statement, the tenant denied the said allegations and pleaded that the shop was in the same condition in which it was when it was rented out to him. He had not made any alternation therein. The landlord had himself made certain improvements and that he had only fitted certain furniture therein. In these circumstances, the question of impairing the value and utility of the demised premises did not arise. Earlier, the Rent Controller, vide order dated November, 24, 1976, dismissed the ejectment application, but the same was set aside in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, being the Appellate Authority at the time and the eviction order was passed. The Appellate Authority itself inspected the shop and came to the conclusion that the tenant had materially changed the shop without the prior permission of the landlord and, had, thus, impaired the value and utility thereof. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant had filed the revision petition in this Court. Vide this Court order dated May 1, 1986, a report was sent for from the authorities below on the question of impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises because earlier, none of the authorities below had discussed the evidence led by the parties.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller vide report dated August 22, 1986, came to the conclusion that from the evidence lad by the landlord it stood proved that there was a chabutra in front of the shop, in dispute, when the same was let out to the tenant in the year 1964 and that the tenant had adjoined the shop and the site of the chabutra by raising two side walls and by putting a lintel roof over the site of chabutra. The tenant also removed the wooden door which used to open on the chabutra and instead of wooden door, he fixed the iron shutter. Thus, it stood proved that the tenant had made material alternations in the demised premises without the consent of the landlord which had definitely diminished its value and utility from the point of view of the landlord. The said report was submitted to the Appellate Authority who approved and sent the same vide his report dated October 30, 1986.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that it had been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the tenant had shifted the door and had covered the chabutra and included the same in the shop in dispute. Thus, argued the learned counsel, this, by itself, was sufficient to show that it had materially impaired the utility and value of the demised premises. No further evidence was required in this behalf. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Shri Gian Chand's case (supra); Narian Singh v. Bakson Laboratories, 1982 (1) RCR 237; 1982(1) Rent Law Reporter 391 and Smt. Nirmala v. Ishwar Chander, 1981 Punjab Law Reporter 263.