IMPORTANT POINT
Alteration in building by tenant which materially impaired value and utility of premises is from the point of landlord and not of the tenant.

ORDER

This is a desperate attempt on the part of the petitioner, who was unsuccessful throughout, to hold on to the premises of which he is the tenant.

2. The petitioner is the tenant of land and building constructed upon a plot in Jalandhar. Sometime in the year 1967 the petitioner was inducted into the premises by a lease agreement dated 25.10.1967. The lease agreement, inter alia, contained a clause which said, "that the lessees will not make any addition or alteration or change in the building during the period of tenancy".

3. The respondent-landlord moved a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on two grounds, namely, (1) that the petitioner had not been paying the enhanced rent as per the terms of the agreement; and (2) that though the earlier the petitioner had made a temporary shed over the generator which was placed in the courtyard, the petitioner had now extended and made further construction of two pacca sheds without consent of the landlord in the courtyard and by constructing the sheds the petitioner had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises.

4. The Rent Controller raised the following issues:

1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent?

2. Whether the respondent has made additions and alternations without the consent of the petitioner and has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in question?

3. Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by their own act and conduct as alleged?

4. Whether the petitioner are debarred from demanding the access rent?

5. Relief."

5. After trial of the application, the Rent Controller answered the first issue in favour of the petitioner. With regard to the 2nd issue, the Rent Controller held that the constructions made were of such nature as to materially impair the value and utility of the premises and an act which would amount to a ground for eviction under section 13(2)(iii) of the Act.

6. The Rent Controller decided the third issue in favour of the petitioner and held that the previous litigation pertained to a temporary shed covering the generator in which the finding had been that there was no material impairment of the value and utility of the premises. Although, the respondent-landlord had attempted to evict the petitioner-tenant for this reason, he had failed throughout in the litigation right up to this Court. The Rent Controller took the view that this did not prevent the landlord from moving again on a fresh cause of action.

7. The appellate authority under the Act, after careful re-appreciation of the evidence on record completely affirmed the findings recorded on all issues by the Rent Controller. The appellate authority also took the view that the sheds constructed by the tenant are of permanent nature which could not be removed without doing damage to the building in question as they were embedded in the floor and also in the side wall; that by constructing the three sheds on almost whole of the courtyard, the petitioner had not only obstructed ventilation to the courtyard, but had also reduced the area of the courtyard considerably. According to the appellate authority, this certainly amounts to "materially impairing the value of the premises". The appeal therefore failed.

8. Although the High Court was merely deciding a civil revision petition by the unsuccessful tenant, the High Court has also reappreciated the evidence threadbare and affirmed the findings of the two courts below. The High Court has rightly rejected the contention that merely because in the previous litigation the petitioner-tenant had succeeded, that could not debar the respondent-landlord from moving a petition for eviction based on subsequent events affording him a fresh cause of action. The High Court has affirmed the findings of the two courts below that the valu