The court emphasized the importance of proving material impairment of the premises and found that the alleged alterations did not meet this standard.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is landlords petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below. The landlord Diwan Singh who died during the pendency of these proceedings filed the ejectment application of his tenant Kailash Chand from the shop in dispute consisting of one room, one varandah in the shape of a room and an open courtyard on the ground floor and a gallery on the first floor which was let out to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 135/- per month for selling Bhatooras, chholey, tea and aerated water vide rent note Exhibit A-8 dated 1.5.73. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the grounds that the tenant used the premises for the purposes other than for which it was let out and secondly the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility, of the premises by dismantling the original gallery, hall etc. and completely changed the shape and has also raised unauthorised construction on the vacant site and has constructed a new kitchen, cabin and a latrine and a drain for discharge of water and thirdly, the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for more than 2-1/4 years and has kept it permanently closed and locked. The tenant controverted the said allegation in his written statement. He pleaded that he has not used the premises for any other purposes, he has not committed any unauthorised acts and has not made any structural alterations. He also denied that he has ceased to occupy the premises nor has he permanently closed and locked the shop. He further pleaded, that the landlord was barred by his act and conduct and acquiescence to file this application. Both the authorities below have concurrently found that the landlord has failed to prove the said allegations made in the ejectment application and have thus dismissed the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenant has raised unauthorised construction and, therefore, he was liable to ejectment. In support of his contention, he referred to Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories etc. 1981 Cur. L.J. 414 : 1981(2) RCR 237, Natha Singh v. Harbans Singh, 1980 Cur L.J. 202 and Daya Singh v. Shrimati Shanta Anand, 1980(2) RCR 168 : 1980(2) RLR 424.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this petition. It has been found as a fact by the authorities below that the tenant did not make major alterations and the landlord, has not stated that the alleged alterations have made any material impairment of either value or utility of the premises. According to the finding of the Appellate Authority, no vacant space has been turned into built area nor has any structural alteration been made in the main building. In view of these findings, the authorities referred to above, have no bearing on the facts of the present case. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.