BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. RAJIV TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHUPINDER Singh petitioner had filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala dated 17. 2. 1994 and that of the Appellate Authority, Patiala dated 27. 2. 1997. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised property. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) THE sole controversy between the parties has been as to if the petitioner has materially effected the value and utility of the demised property or not. The respondent's case was that a shop was let out to the petitioner in the space which has been shown as blue in the site plan. There was a wall and a shutter. There was open space covered with cement sheets. The tenant is alleged to have demolished the portion shown in blue colour and put up a lintel on the portion shown in red colour and fixed a new shutter. The petitioner had contested the claim of the respondent and asserted that there was no wall and shutter in the portion. The property in dispute is in the same condition as before.

(3.) AS regards setting up of the said constructions, there is a finding of fact arrived at by the both the Courts below that after removal of the earlier portion, the petitioner had put up a lintel, covered the verandah and set up a shutter therein. Since it is finding of fact so arrived at, this Court in a revision petition cannot set aside the same unless the findings are absurd and not based on evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and Ors. , A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 1422 categorically held: