The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act, a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant if the tenant's acts materially impair the value or utility of the building, and the court must consider the landlord's perspective in assessing the impact of any alterations made by the tenant.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the landlord against the order dated 11.9.1987 passed by the Appellate Authority under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , whereby the order dated 12.10.1983 of the Rent Controller, ordering the ejectment of the tenant-respondents, has been set aside.

2. The facts leading to the case are that Shiv Ram (now represented by his legal-representatives) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short - Act) for ejectment of the respondents i.e. Sham Lal and M/s Punjab Oil Store through Sham Lal on the ground of non-payment of rent and making the material alterations, which diminished the value and utility of the building without the permission of the landlord. It is alleged that the respondent made material alterations by converting a room into two rooms and fitting a door therein to the newly constructed room. The shop as detailed in the head note of the Rent Petition was let out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- sometime in the year 1968.

3. The respondents filed their reply to the ejectment petition in which an objection was raised that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was stated that the property in dispute had been let out by the firm M/s Shiv Ram and Sons and not by Shiv Ram alone. Besides, it had been let out to M/s Punjab Oil Store-respondent No. 2 and the rent was also received from it. The rent, it was stated, was tendered on the first date of hearing. The averments relating to material alterations were denied. It was rather stated that the demised premises were in the same condition as had been taken on rent.

4. The petitioner filed replication and it was stated that the respondent was guilty of making material alterations which decreased the value and utility of the rented premises and that the premises depicts a quite different look.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and respondent No. 1, as alleged on para 2 of the application ? OPP

2. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment as alleged in para No. 3 of the application ? OPP.

3. Relief.

6. The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 12.10.1983 accepted the rent petition and ordered ejectment of the tenant-respondents from the demised premises. Against the aforesaid order, the tenant-respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 11.9.1987 and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside. It is against the said order dated 11.9.1987 that the present revision petition has been filed in this Court.

7. I have heard Shri O.P. Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amit Jaswal, Advocate for the landlord-petitioner and Shri H.S. Gill, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri D.S. Virk, Advocate for the tenant- respondents and with their assistance gone through the records of the case.

8. The findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue No. 1 that there exists relationships of landlord and tenant between the parties was not assailed before the learned Appellate Authority. Neither is it assailed in this Court . Therefore, it is taken that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant.

9. The only question that requires consideration is whether the respondent- tenants made material alterations in the demised premises which has diminished its value and utility.

10. Shri O.P. Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the landlord-petitioner has contended that the Rent Controller, after considering the entire material and evidence on record, came to a firm conclusion that there were material alterations and additions in respect of the demised premises. He further contends that even otherwise it is established on record that the shop was constructed according to the site