The landlord must provide cogent evidence to prove that the tenant's construction or alteration materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises in order to succeed in an ejectment action.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This order will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 2639 of 1983 and 441 of 1984, as both of them arise out of the same judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 21st September, 1981.

2. This is tenants petition against whom order of eviction has been passed by both the authorities below. The ejectment of Roshan Lal tenant is being sought from one room in house No. B. IV-740 Wait Ganj, Ludhiana. The said room was rented out to the tenant vide rent-note dated 25th February 1959, Exhibit A-3, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The tenancy started from Ist March, 1959. The application for ejectment was filed on 16th December, 1977 on the following grounds:-

(i) That the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation.

(ii) That the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(iii) That the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing parchhatis therein.

(iv) That there was change of user as the premises were let out for residence, whereas the tenant was carrying on business therein.

3. The allegations made in the ejectment application were controverted on behalf of the tenant in the written statement. On trial the learned Rent Controller found that the room in dispute was rented out for residential purposes; that the tenant has changed its user from residence to business; that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. The plea of the landlord that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was negatived. In view of these findings, eviction order was passed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of change of user and that the landlord bonafide require the premises for his own use and occupation. However, it maintained the finding of the Rent Controller on the question that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In view of this finding the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court. The other Revision petition No. 441 of 1981 has been filed on behalf of the landlord by virtue of which he is contesting the finding of the Appellate Authority on the other two grounds which were found in his favour by the Rent Controller.

4. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that even if it be assumed that the three Parchhatis were constructed by the tenant after the premises were let out to him, even that then was no finding on the record that the construction for the said Parchhatis has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. According to the learned counsel the expert evidence of AW5, Sat Dev, produced by the landlord, the weight of 5 to 7 lbs has been placed on the walls because of these Parchhatis and if it isso then it cannot be held that it has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of this contention he relied on Gobind Ram v. Shrimati Kaushalya Rani and others, 1981 (2) Rent Control Reporter 621. On the other hand learned counsel for the landlord submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that by constructing three Parchhatis the value and utility of the building has been materially impaired and in support of his contention he referred to Om parkash Vs. Shri Anand Swarup, 1980 P.L.R. (S.N.) 11. Further it has been urged that it being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. It was further argued that according to the plea of the tenant the said parchhatis were in existence when the premises were let out to him, whereas it has been found that it was the tenant who constructed the Parchhatis and therefore, a false plea was taken by the tenant.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on t