Construction of two chhapars and encroachment upon the remaining portion of the landlord's land amounted to material impairment of value and utility of the demised premises.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is tenants petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but the eviction order was passed in appeal. The premises in dispute is vacant land measuring 70 x 20 on which a room is also constructed. The same was let out to tenant Ram Singh on 1st March, 1973. The landlord filed the present ejectment application on 27th April, 1982, inter alia on the ground that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing two chhapars on the vacant land; that the premises were given for residential purposes whereas the tenant was doing dairy business therein by keeping cattle; that the tenant being guilty of such act and conduct as are nuisance to the landlord and in the neighbourhood. The plea of non-payment of arrears of rent from 1st June, 1979 to 31st March, 1982 was also taken.

2. The reply filed on behalf of the tenant, he denied all the averments made in the ejectment application. He pleaded that the premises were taken on rent for dairy purposes and not for residential as alleged. He denied that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- as claimed by the landlord and also the plea that he has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing chhapars thereon. Not only that though he tendered arrears of rent as claimed on the first date of hearing, but at the same time took up the plea that the rent was already paid vide certain receipts. The learned Rent Controller found that the plea taken by the tenant for payment of arrears of rent was false and the receipts produced by him Exhibits R.3, R.4 and R.8 found to be forged ones. However, in view of the payment made on the first date of hearing, no ejectment could be ordered on this ground. The other pleas taken by the landlord were negatived. It was held that though the tenant has encroached upon the remaining land of the landlord adjoining the demised premises but it was of no consequence and it could not amount to nuisance as alleged by the landlord. As regards construction of two chhapars, the learned Rent Controller found that one of them is a smaller chhapar and the other is a cattle shed of the size of 11.6 x 8.3. According to the learned Rent Controller, from the construction of the said Chhapars it could not be said that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The plea of change of user was also negatived. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated 3rd March, 1987.

3. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises, the change of user as well as on the ground of nuisance and consequently passed the eviction order. According to the findings of the Appellate Authority, from the entire evidence, it is proved on the record that the premises, in dispute in fact were let out as residential premises, but the tenant has changed its user from residential and non-residential purpose without the consent of the landlord. He further found that the act of the tenant has caused nuisance to the neighbours and to the landlord; that the acts of the tenant by collecting the cow-dung cakes on the tenanted premises as well as in the remaining portion of the plot owned by the landlord has caused nuisance to the neighbours and to the landlord. As regards the material impairing of the value & the utility of the demised premises, the Appellate Authority found that by raising the construction of two Chhapars on the tenanted premises, the tenant has tried to convert the residential building into non-residential building by opening the dairy in the premises. He had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises by collecting the cow-dung cakes on the roof of the room. It has caused danger to the building which is sufficient material for him to hold that the tenant has impaired the value and utilit