PHULLAN RANI Vs. MADAN LAL AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision petition filed by Phullan Rani against concurrent judgments of learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, whereby petition filed by landlord-respondent seeking her ejectment from the demised premises, was allowed on the ground of making material additions and alterations in the demised premises. The landlordrespondent described the material alterations in the demised premises by revision-petitioner in his petition as follows:-

(2.) The revision-petitioner denied any addition or alteration in the tenanted premises and alleged that it is in the same condition as it was let out. However, witnesses examined by revision-petitioner admitted the additions and alterations in the demised premises. RW-1 Jasbir Singh stated that the revision-petitioner was let out one hall room, one kitchen, bathroom, latrine and small verandah while at present there are two latrines in the property out of which one is old one and one is new one. RW-2 Naresh Kumar admitted that flush latrine has been constructed in the courtyard. He also admitted the site plan Ex. PW-2/2 produced by landlordrespondent as correct. Surinder Kumar, who appeared as RW-3 denied that any latrine was constructed in the courtyard but termed the same as bathroom. He, however, admits that there is chaukhat in the stairs.

(3.) On the proof of construction raised in the courtyard, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner took the plea before learned Rent Controller that there is no evidence that the alleged construction has diminished the value and utility of the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence on record observed as follows:-