OM PARKASH Vs. SURRINDER MOHAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant has challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Appellate Authority dt/-21-4-1980 by which he has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute on the ground that he has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises within the meaning and ambit of S.13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (for short 'the Act'). The judgment of the learned Rent Controller went in favour of the petitioner tenant which in appeal was reversed by the Appellate Authority. In the present case an interesting and important question of law on the basis of the admitted or proved facts does arise. Before embarking upon the question of law, it is necessary to have a look at the averments made in para 2(b) of the application :

(2.) Shri H.L Sarin, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant while arguing the case vehemently on the question of law has not disputed about the constructions. In view thereof, it is necessary to have a look at the factual position regarding the constructions in order to appreciate the question of law, and which is given below.

(3.) The demised premises comprised of three rooms and a verandah before the effecting of alterations. The side and front walls of the verandah have been constructed. The walls constructed, however, do not touch the roof of the verandah. There is a portable door fitted to the front wall of the verandah. A cement concrete platform (Gaddi) has been constructed in it; a ceiling fan has been fitted to a hook, in the ceiling in the verandah; the verandah has been provided with electricity, telephone and a cash-box. There is a staircase for going to the chowbaras which are in existence on the first-floor. The Appealable Authority after considering the entire evidence brought on the record of the case has come to the conclusion that the petitioner tenant has raised the side walls and front walls of the verandah and converted the same into an office room where he carries on his business. It has been further found by the Appellate Authority that the walls raised by the tenant-petitioner do not touch the ceiling and that there is some gap between the walls and the ceiling of the verandah. It has been further found that source of light and air to all the three rooms comprising the entire shop was through the varandah and as the verandah has been converted into an office room, the light and air into the remaining three rooms of the shop has been diminished. It is further the finding of the Appellate Authority that towards the East of the shop there was a common stair-case for going to the roof of the chowbaras and due to the construction of eastern and southern walls of the verandah, the stair-case has ceased to remain a part of the shop in dispute and the same cannot be used for going from the verandah to the chowbaras. The above mentioned findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are clearly borne out from the record of the case. I have gone through the entire evidence brought on the record of the case and the above mentioned findings are clearly borne out from the evidence. No exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. In fact, two additional facts which appear to have escaped the notice of the Appellate Authority are discernible from the report of the Local Commissioner and the other evidence brought on the record of the case. Firstly, it has come in the report of the Local Commissioner that there was a Gaddi in existence in the first room after one enters from the verandah and, secondly, it has been admitted by the respondent-tenant himself when he appeared as RW 1 that there was no fan in the three rooms. From the above mentioned factual position my conclusion is that by the acts of the tenant he has made himself available more accommodation than what was in existence prior thereto; diminished air and light to all the three rooms and put an obstruction to the access to the chowbaras from within the verandah. The question which arises from these proved facts is whether the tenant can be held guilty of impairing the value and utility of the demised premises and whether he can be evicted therefrom under S.13(2)(iii) of the Act. In order to determine this question of law it would be necessary to notice the case law cited at the Bar by the counsel for the parties who have addressed this court at length.