M/S BHATIA CLOTH MILLS Vs. SHRI VASDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has directed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 3.3.1980 of the learned Appellate Authority, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the order of the Rent Controller qua ejectment of the tenant on the ground of having materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Shri Vasdev, landlord of the factory premises located in plot No. 196, Industrial Area, Ludhiana, had rented out one machinery hall measuring 36' x 21' along with one electric moter of 5 H.P., patta, pulleys, shaft, iron girders, ball bearings besides one office room measuring 10' x 12' to M/s. Bhatia Cloth Mills at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The landlord sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 1.5.1971 and on the ground of tenant materially impairing the value and utility of the building by constructing two parchhatis in the room after digging two holes in the wall. He also alleged that one big hole was dug in the hall of the room. This application was resisted by the tenant by tendering the arrears of rent etc. on the first date of hearing. On merits it was alleged that the parchhatis etc. were already in existence from the very inception of the tenancy. In replication filed by the landlord, further allegation was levelled against the tenant of having installed on 8 H.P. oil engine in the main hall besides digging another hole in the wall for serving as outlet for the exhaust pipe of the oil engine. It was further contended that the working of the oil engine was also causing damage to the premises in dispute and materially impaired its value and utility.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of material impairment in the value and utility of the building due to construction of the above referred parchhatis and the digging of holes etc. The learned Appellate Authority vide its impugned order also confirmed the above referred findings of the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) SHRI M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the landlord on the other hand raised preliminary objection about limited scope of this Court while exercising jurisdiction on revisional side. He further maintained that the concurrent findings of both the lower courts are supported from the observation of this High Court in Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh and another, 1976 Punjab Law Reporter 750 and Om Pal v. Shri Anand Swarup 1980(2) RCR 720 : 1980(2) Indian Rent Control Journal 729.