Suman Light Hosiery vs Jaswant Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

Landlord Jaswant Singh sought the ejectment of the tenant, M/s. Suman Light Hosiery, from the demised premises which consist of six rooms, the drawing room and one myani on the ground floor of House No. B. VI/253, situated in Madhopuri, Ludhiana, rented out vide rent note dated December 17, 1966, Exhibit A. 1, for hosiery business. The ejectment of the tenant was sought therefrom in the year 1973 mainly on the ground that it had materially impaired the value and utility thereof by constructing wooden parchhatis in the rooms without the consent of the landlord and that it had dismantled two wooden walls. In their places, it had constructed a brick-wall on the lintel thereby causing great damage to the building, in question. In the written statement, the plea taken by the tenant was that the alleged alterations or construction already existed at the time of the inception of the tenancy and, thus, it had not done anything which was likely to impair the value or utility thereof. On the evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had constructed the parchhatis and the wall the weight of which fell on the lintel under which there was no support. Thus, it was concluded that it was likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller with the observations,--

Therefore, I agree with the Rent Controller that the construction made by the appellant without consent of the applicant had resulted in impairing the value and utility of the house, in question.

Consequently the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against it was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, it has come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even if the findings of the authorities below that the tenant had raised the wooden parchhatis in two rooms of the premises, in question, and had also constructed a 3" thick masonry wall, 11'' long and 10 1/2'' high, even then it could not be concluded that it had committed such acts as were likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises, as contemplated u/s 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. According to the learned counsel, it will be a question of fact in each case as to whether the alleged constructions or the acts on the part of the tenant are likely to materially impair the value or utility of the premises, or not. for which the burden lies on the landlord. In the present case, according to the learned counsel, there is no evidence to prove that the alleged acts on the part of the tenant were likely to materially impair the value or utility of the premises. in dispute. Therefore, the findings arrived at by both the authorities below are vitiated. The learned counsel also contended that admittedly, the demised premises were let out for hosiery business vide rent note, Exhibit A. 1 and that whatever alterations have been made by the tenant thereto, the same are necessary for proper running of the said business. As such, no eviction order could be passed against it. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sucha Singh Kabari v. Brij Lal (1979) 2 R.C.R. 482; Gobind Ram v. Shrimati Kaushalya Rani 1981 (2) R.C.R. 621, Smt. Nirmala v. Ishwar Chander (1981) 83 P.L.R. 263 and Ram Dayal v. Ram Charan Dass 1984 (1) R.C.R. 282. The learned counsel also referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories 1982 (1) R.C.J. 1, to contend that the alterations or constructions alleged to have been made by the tenant must be substantial which are likely to affect '' materially" the value or utility of the demised premises. On the other hand the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the alleged acts of the tenant were likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises and, thus, it being a finding of fact, could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, since it will be a question of fact in each case as to whether the tenant had committed such acts as are likely to materially impair the value or utility of the premises, in this case on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been found as a fact, that the tenant has materially impaired their value and utility, therefore, the eviction order has been rightly passed against him by both the authorities below. The learned counsel also pointed out that the stand taken by the tenant in the written statement was that he never made any alternations, as alleged in the ejectment application and that the same existed at the time of the beginning of the tenancy, which stand was belied. The witnesses produced by it have not been believed by both the authorities below. According to the learned counsel, since the tenant has constructed a brick-wall after removing the wooden walls, it has increased the burden on the roof of the room beneath, and has, thus impaired materially the value and utility of the building. According to the learned counsel the impairment of the building is not to be seen immediately, but if the alleged acts committed by the tenant are likely to impair materially the value or utility thereof in future, even then the eviction order could be passed against the tenant on that ground. The learned counsel also relied upon Narain Singh''s case (supra). The learned counsel also relied upon Om Pal v. Shri Anand Swarup 1980 (1) R.C.J. 729 in support of the contentions raised by him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

Primarily, it will be a question of fact in each case to be determined on the evidence led by the parties as to whether the alleged acts comitted by the tenant are such which are likely to materially impair the value or utility of the premises or not. In the present case, on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found that the above-said two acts on the part of the tenant materially impaired the value and utility of the building. It is true that the Court must come to the conclusion as to in what manner the alleged alterations are likely to impair the value or utility of the premises materially. In the present case relying upon the expert evidence of Hari Ram and the report of the local Comissioner, it has been found that as regards the parchhatis their support partly rest on the ground floor and partly on the wails. In any case, since the supporting Pillars exist on the floor, there can be no doubt that they have considerably increased the burden on the roof of the room. It may, however, be made clear here that the floor of the room is the roof of the room underneath in occupation of the landlord. Besides, the brick-wall constructed with cement mortar has no support underneath. Even the aforesaid expert Hari Ram while appearing as R. W. 4 admitted that the wall had increased the burden on the roof of the room underneath and that there was no beam provided under the said wall. Thus, from the evidence on the record, it has been found that the said alterations had materially impaired the value and utility of the building in question. The stand taken by the tenant in the written statement also becomes relevant because according to him, he never raised the said constructions and that the same existed at the time of the biginning of the tenancy which abundantly stands falsified by the evidence on the record. Even prior to the filing of the ejectment application in the year 1973, there was some dispute between the parties and an arbitrator had been appointed who gave the award a copy of which is mark A. Therein also, it was found that the tenant had made certain alterations without the consent of the landlord. Inspite of that report, the plea taken by the tenant in the written statement was that the alleged alterations existed at the time of the inspection of the tenancy. It has been held in Narain Singh''s case (supra), that whilst undoubtedly, the true envil for determining there factors would ultimately be the objective finding of the Court, there is a large body of judicial opinion that the impairement of value or utility has to be examined from the point of view of the landlord. In particular it is not whether the utility is deminished qua the tenant because the facts complained of would be those committed by him and would obviously not diminish the utility of the building for his purpose. Therefore, the impairment of the utility is particularly relevant to either the needs of the owner of the building or in the larger prospect of its utility to an intending purchaser in the market.

Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the authorities below as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three months, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month from today alongwith an undertaking, in writing, that the tenant shall vacate the premises after the expiry of the said period of three months and shall hand over the vacant possession thereof to the landlord.