Shadi Ram Passi vs Kharaiti Lal

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This civil revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Court reversing the order of the Rent Controller vide which the tenant was ordered to be ejected.

Landlord (petitioner herein) sought ejectment of his tenant (respondent herein) on the following grounds :~

(i) that the house was let out to the tenant for the residence but he on purchase of another house in the name of his son, has shifted to that house and has started tethering cattle in the said house and has thus charged the user of the demised premises ;

(ii) that the tenant, without the consent of the landlord, has raised two walls of one room by about 5 feet and has roofed the same has also constructed a verandah thereby lessening the area of the courtyard of the house. These alterations have materially affected the value and utility of the building ;

(iii) that the house is required for the personal necessity for providing a separate residence for his married son.

Petition was contested by the respondent, who in his written statement, denied the grounds on which ejectment was sought. He, in fact, set up a plea that the house in dispute was never used for the purpose of residence.

The Rent controller, on appraisal of evidence on record, passed an order of ejectment against the tenant on all the grounds. This order was challenged by the tenant before the Appellate Authority who reversed the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority found that the house was never let out for the purpose of residence and, therefore, cannot be got vacated for the bona fide requirement of the landlord''s married son The finding on the ground that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises was also set aside by the Appellate Authority and deeded in favour of the tenant This order is being challenged in this civil revision.

Mr. H.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument only to the ground of material in- pairment of the value and utility of the house.- He submitted that the Rent Controller gave detailed reasons on appraisal of the evidence but the same has been set aside by the Appellate Authority without referring to the evidence on record.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained The Appellate Authority dealt with the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to impairment of the value and utility of the house in para 5 of the judgment which reads as under :-

"As for the ground that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised building, the allegation is that he had constructed a manger, a verandah and had raised the roof of the room by 4'' or 5''. Considering the fact that the building was let for a cattle shed these additions or alterations do not, in my opinion, impair the value and utility of the building."

The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller only on the consideration that since the building was let out for cattle shed, additions and alterations made by the tenant, in no way impair the value and utility of the building. To my mind, this consideration was wholly irrelevant for the decision of the issue. u/s 13(2) (ii) (b) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a landlord is entitled to eject his tenant in case the tenant has, after the commencement of the Act, without the written consent of the landlord, committed such acts as are likely to materially impair the value and utility of the building or rented land. Section 13 of the Act nowhere provides that the tenant is at liberty to make any additions or alterations in a building other than the one which has been let out for the purpose of residence. A tenant can be evicted in case the landlord can successfully establish on record that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the building or rented land by making additions or alterations irrespective of the fact that the same was let out for residential or non residential purpose. It is true that the additions or alterations must be those which materially or substantially change the rent or the structure of the building. In a given case, additions/alterations may be such which may not cause damage to the building or impair its value and utility. Whether additions/alterations have impaired the value and utility of the building, has to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, when the house was let out to the tenant, it only consisted of a room and a courtyard. During the continuance of tenancy, the tenant constructed a verandah in the front portion of the building which is permanent in nature. Construction of verandah has altered the frontage of the building which prior to this construction, had only a courtyard in front and a room on the back. Tenant has also raised walls of one room by about five feet and has roofed the same. Shri Sat Dev Gupta, retired Executive Engineer in his inspection report dated 21-11-1983 (Ex. A. 8) has clearly opined that the height of the room has been raised and girders have been put on the same ; that the construction of cattle shed i.e. verandah has reduced the courtyard area and raising of walls and roof of room B is of recent construction. He has shown these alterations in the site plan, Ex. A.9. There is no categorical denial by the tenant of these constructions. Rent Controller rightly disbelieved the statement of Shri B. C. Katyal. Building Expert produced by the tenant. Shri B. C. Katyal could not even identify the building when he was confronted with the photographs, Exhs. A1 to A3. The photographs clearly indicate that the height of the wall has been raised to quite an extent. The additions and alterations referred to above made by the tenant are clearly structural which has given a new face to the form and structure of the building and, therefore, the landlord has successfully established on record that the tenant has, by making material additions and alterations in the building, impaired the value and utility of the premises. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the finding of the Appellate Court, on the ground of material impairment of the value and utility, cannot be sustained.

Consequently, this civil revision is allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored with no order as to costs. Tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided he pays the entire arrears of rent including that of three months within a period of one month from today and also files an undertaking to the effect that on the expiry of three months, he shall hand over vacant possession to the landlord. The undertaking to be furnished within a period of one month from today. C M No. 5675-CII of 1991 is also allowed.