SUSHILA DEVI Vs. JAGDISH MITTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the orders of concurrence recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissing the petition of petitioner-landlord filed by her under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The surviving ground that has been pressed into service is that the respondent tenant has made material alterations, thus, diminishing the value and utility of the demised premises.

(2.) The parties went to trial on the following issues:-

(3.) Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories etc., 1981 C.L.J. (Civil) 414, vehemently contends that unauthorised permanent conversion of verandah into rooms and the installation of a door by a tenant are acts likely to impair materially the value and utility of the demised premises.