BOMBAY MOTORS Vs. BHAGWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord's petition for eviction filed under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the grounds of nonpayment of rent, subletting, change of user and material alteration that allegedly impaired the value and utility of the building was upheld on the first two grounds. In appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority found that the ground of material alteration of the construction that impaired the value and utility of the building was the only ground available for the landlord and reversed the finding of the Rent Controller as regards non-payment of rent as well as regards the change of user, but still dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant on account of abovesaid finding regarding the material alteration. Aggrieved against the order of ejectment, the tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) WHILE adverting to the ground of material alteration, the Courts below had referred to the averment made in the petition. The tenant was alleged to have "plastered bond in front elevation and also painted faces and uses the same for advertisement purpose and walls constructed in the back courtyard" (sic) and attributed them as constituting the actionable wrong acts. According to the landlord, these material alterations had been effected without the consent in writing of the landlord. This act of the tenant, according to the landlord, resulted in an action for resumption by the Chandigarh Administration and relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court that an action that exposed the landlord for imminent action constituted material impairment and afforded the ground to the landlord to obtain eviction.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant pointed out to the denial of the averments regarding the so-called construction at the courtyard and his consistent stand had been that the building from the stage of the inception of the tenancy in the early 1960s continued to remain the same. There had been no independent evidence placed through any one to affirm that the tenant had made any construction that impaired the value and utility of the building.