The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant's admission and un-rebutted evidence of arrears of rent, change of shop's use, and damage to the premises supported the eviction order.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. —These two Revision Petitions, arising out of a common judgment, passed by Appellate Authority under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, preferred by landlord as well as tenant, are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Landlord filed an eviction petition against tenant on the ground of arrears of rent, change of user of shop, causing damage to wall and floor of the shop impairing the value and utility of shop materially and bonafide requirement to settle his son during his life time. It is also stated in the petition that tenant was also running a show room opposite the tenanted shop and was earning his livelihood from the said show room of garments.

3. In reply, claim of landlord was denied and it was stated that show room opposite tenanted shop belonged to son of tenant, with which tenant had no concern.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

"(1) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, as alleged in the petition? OPP

(2) Whether the respondent without the consent of the petitioner has changed the user of the shop and made himself liable for eviction, as alleged? OPP

(3) Whether the respondent has caused material alterations and additions in the premises by replacing the floor etc. as alleged in the petition? OPP

(4) Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioner bonafidely for running of his shop, as prayed? OPP

(5) Whether the petition is based on mala fidies? OPR

(6) Whether the petition is not maintainable, as similar petition was dismissed in default earlier? OPR

(7) Relief."

5. Issues No. 5 and 6 were technical issues, neither any material for proving these issues was placed on record by tenant nor the issues have been agitated in present petition. Issue No. 7 will follow the consequences of findings returned against issues No. 1 to 4.

6. Rent Controller, on the basis of pleadings and evidence led by parties, passed order of eviction against tenant for arrears of rent and for changing the use of shop without consent of the landlord. However, claim of landlord that tenant had caused material alterations and additions in the premises by replacing the floor etc. and the premises in question was required by landlord bonafidely for running his shop, were rejected. Order of the Rent Controller was assailed by landlord as well as tenant by filing separate appeals before the Appellate Authority.

7. During pendency of appeal before Appellate Authority, tenant had preferred an application under Section 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for leading additional evidence by placing on record various bills indicating sale of electronic goods from his shop being run in the tenanted premises. The appellate Authority dismissed this application and also both the appeals preferred by tenant and landlord affirming the order passed by Rent Controller, ordering eviction of tenant for arrears of rent and change of user of the shop.

8. Tenant has assailed the judgment of Appellate Authority by filing Civil Revision No. 99 of 2014, whereas Civil Revision No. 127 of 2014 has been filed by landlord.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case.

10. Learned counsel for the landlord submits that Courts below have failed to consider the un-rebutted pleadings of landlord that additions and alterations, made by tenant for changing business, have materially impaired the value and utility of the building causing damage to wall and floor of the premises despite admissions of these additions and alterations in statement of RW-1 Sharukh Ahmed. He submits that by rejecting the claim of landlord with respect to damage caused by material alterations and additions in the premises by tenant and also bonafide requirement of landlord, Courts below have committed a mistake in law and thus impugned judgment/order warrants interference for deciding these issues in favour of landlord.

11. Learned counsel for tenant though supports finding of Courts