Bhupinder Singh vs Rajiv Tandon

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—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.

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.

Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority held by setting up the lintel and the shutter the petitioner severally impaired the value and utility of the property. The petitioner was even alleged to have set up a store in the said property.

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 Vs. Ishwar Chander and Others, categorically held:-

"The criticism of Shri Harbans Lai that it was impermissible for the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority, however erroneous they be, is not, having regard to the language in which the revisional power is couched, tenable. In an appropriate case, the High Court can reappraise the evidence if the findings of the appellate court are found to be infirm in law."

It was not so that the said findings were not based on evidence and there was misreading of evidence. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner to this effect which was not even otherwise seriously pressed carries no weight.

The main controversy agitated was as to if by doing the said changes there has been a material impairment in the value and utility or not. In this regard the expression ''materially'' is important. Every change that is effected in the property will not be the ground of eviction available. The value and utility must materially be effected. Of course it has to be seen from the point of view of the landlord. Reference to some of the precedents would be in the fitness of things. In the case of Chatar Sain v. Bishan Lal and Ors. (1976)78 PLR 174 the verandah was included into the shop. It was held that it constitutes strictly alterations. The tenant was held liable to be evicted. Similarly, in the case of Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh and Anr. (1979)81 P LR 750 strictly alterations had been made in the shop. It was held that tenant was liable to be evicted u/s 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

Similarly, in the case of Smt. Nirmala v. Ishwar Chander 4 (1981)83 PLR 263 the tenant had removed the door of the shop and raised construction in the open portion. He converted the old building and open space into big hall. It was held that tenant was liabje to be evicted. In the case of Kailash Pictures v. Shri tail C. Bhawani 1989(1) R LR 446 the verandah was converted into a room by raising a pucca wall. It was held that value and utility of the premises had materially been impaired. Same was the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Vs. Roshan Lal Anand and Others, . Herein a wall was constructed in the verandah and door was put up. The Supreme Court held that tenant was liable to be evicted.

The position herein is no different. The tenant has changed the roof and put up a lintel, in front of it after covering the open space, a shutter had even been placed. From the view of the landlord it must be taken that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. Accordingly, it must be held there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the property.