In order to establish a ground for eviction under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, a landlord must prove that the construction raised by the tenant is not easily removable or that it changes the form, front, or structure of the property.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.5.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 with a prayer that the judgment of the Appellate Authority be set aside and the order passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, on 17.11.1982 be restored.

2. The petitioner filed an ejectment petition against the respondent under Section 13 of 1949 Act on the ground of non-payment of rent since 1978 and also on the ground of making alteration in the tenanted property. The respondent contested the application on the ground of want of notice, mala fide intention of the petitioner and also on the ground that no material alteration had been made by him over the property in dispute. The petitioner examined Sukhwinder Singh, Naresh Kumar, Satnam Singh, B.N. Nanda and Parduman Kumar to prove her claim whereas the respondent appeared himself and examined Balwant Singh and Changa Singh in support of his case.

3. On the issue of non-payment of rent the Rent Controller held that the amount of rent had been tendered by the tenant along with interest and costs and as no deficiency could be pointed by the counsel for the petitioner, the tenant was not liable to be ejected on that ground. However, on the issue of material alteration, the Rent Controller held that erection of nine pillars and putting of roof on them amounted to material impairment in the value and utility of the property. The Rent Controller also held that these constructions have been made without the consent of the landlord, and, therefore, the tenant was liable to be ejected. On the basis of these findings, the Rent Controller passed order dated 17.11.1982 for ejectment of the tenant.

4. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellants Authority declined the request made on his behalf for permission to amend the written statement whereby the tenant wanted to challenge the title of the landlord. On the issue of material alteration in the tenanted property, the Appellate Authority disagreed with the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and held that the structure raised by the tenant was temporary in nature and there was no change in the user of the property. On the basis of this conclusion, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition filed by the landlord.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally in reversing the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of material impairment in the value of the property and lack of consent by the landlord. He argued that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority about the nature of construction as well as consent of the landlord are based on no evidence and, therefore, the same must be discarded being perverse. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence produced by the parties and record its own findings on the issue of material impairment in the value or utility of the property as well as the consent of the landlord and as the impugned findings are based on proper evaluation of the evidence and the view taken by the Appellate Authority is quite plausible, this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

6. Before proceeding further, I deem it proper to observe that revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of 1949 Act to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Controller/Appellate Authority is very limited. Ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller/Appellate Authority. Therefore, I shall examine the legality of the impugned judgment keeping in view the limited jurisdiction vesting with this Court to interfere with the order/judgment passed by the competent authorities constitu