ATTHAR MAL DEAD Vs. SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by Atthar Mal (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana dated 6.4.1984. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and an eviction order was passed against the tenant-petitioner. Atthar Mal has died and is presently represented by his legal heirs.

(2.) The relevant facts are that suit property had been let for running a Soda Water Factory. The respondent claimed eviction on the ground that petitioner has not paid or tendered the arrears of rent since 1.6.1978 despite repeated demands and further that the petitioner had committed such acts which had impaired the value and utility of the property. The entire look of the shop is stated to have been changed. As per the respondent, the petitioner had removed the wooden doors and thick wooden partition wall. In its place a permanent pucca wall has been set up. The ceiling has been damaged. A 'bhathi' has been set up. The iron girders have been installed; an almirah has been removed and an iron shutter has been fixed in the door by making holes in the door. He controverted the assertions of the respondent-landlord. Plea was raised that no act or omission has been taken by which value and utility of the property has been impaired. It was denied that wooden doors have been removed. As per the petitioner a fire took place which affected the furniture and ceiling but the shop was not damaged. It was denied that almirah has been removed and contention was raised that the respondent-landlord has not placed on record the rent note to spell out as to what was the property that was let.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller as regards the controversy about non payment of rent held that arrears of rent had been tendered and the ground of eviction did not survive. With respect to the plea that the petitioner had impaired the value and utility of the property, the findings returned were that the respondent had not come to the court with clean hands. He had withheld the rent note. He had failed to prove alterations which might have impaired the value and utility of the premises. It was further concluded that fixing the shutter cannot be held to be material alteration. The respondent preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. It was held that the rent note has not been produced but the Appellate Authority went on to hold that a pucca partition wall has been set up. In addition a shutter had been fixed. These two acts has impaired the value and utility of the premises. In this process, the order of eviction followed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.