Judgment

NATARAJAN, J.-In this appeal by special leave by a tenant against the dismissal of his revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the High Court, what falls for consideration is the manner of construing the words "acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building" occurring in Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act.

2. A parchhati put up by the tenant/appellant in a shop taken on lease by him for running a dry cleaning laundry has been construed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as an act causing material impairment to the building and the High Court has affirmed their findings and dismissed the revision preferred by the appellant. The correctness of the order of the High Court in revision is challenged in this appeal.

3. The facts are not in controversy and may briefly be stated as under. For running a dry cleaning shop the appellant had taken on lease a room from the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs 30. The appellant put up a parchhati in the shop for storing the clothes before and after dry cleaning. The parchhati has been made to rest on the walls by means of wooden ballis inserted in the wall through holes made therein.

4. The appellant did not dispute the construction of the parchhati but contended that the alteration had been made several years ago and that too with the consent of the respondent and secondly the parchhati did not weaken or impair the utility or value of the shop in any manner. In support of his contentions, the appellant examined the neighbouring shop owners to prove that the parchhati had been in existence for long and a retired engineer by name Amrit Lal as RW 3 to speak about the parchhati being only a temporary construction and the said construction not affecting the structural soundness or the utility of the shop in any manner. Notwithstanding the appellants contentions and the evidence of the expert, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rendered findings against him and the High Court accepted those findings in the following manner :

However in the case on hand, it is not a minor alteration but a substantial structural change in the building. Again, the fact that the wooden balcony has been constructed with the support of nuts and bolts would also not make any difference to the position. With modern technique, the construction of even a multi-storeyed building has been made possible by the use of fabrication with steel material, including nuts and bolts. Moreover, the two authorities below have come to a concurrent finding after considering the evidence produced by the parties, that the balcony in question tantamounts to material impairment of the value and utility of the premises.

5. Arguing for the appellant, Mr Sultan Singh, learned counsel stated that while the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have rendered their findings against the appellant without there being any basis for it, the High Court has failed to comprehend Section 13(2)(iii) in its proper perspective and this has led to miscarriage of justice. It was urged that while the appellant had examined an expert RW 3 Amrit Lal to prove that the parchhati was only a temporary wooden fixture which could be easily removed at any time without any damage being caused to the walls of the building, the respondent had not adduced any contra evidence, although the burden of proof was on him to show that by fixing the parchhati the building has been materially impaired so as to affect the value or utility of the building in any manner and attracting Section 13(2) (iii) to the facts of the case. The learned counsel further contended that since the High Court has erred in treating the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as pure findings of fact whereas they were findings on a mixed question of law and fact, the order of the High Court in revision suffers from a serious flaw and it needs co