An order of ejectment cannot be passed against a tenant for violating the terms of a rent-note unless it is proved that such a violation has materially impaired the value or utility of the premises.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is tenants revision petition against whom the order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below.

2. The landlords-respondents sought the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the premises, in dispute, alleging the same to be a house, i.e., a residential building. It was averred in the ejectment application that the demised premises were rented out to the petitioner vide rent note dated August 18, 1969, Exhibit A.1, on the condition that he will not make any construction thereon without the consent of the landlords. Since he had constructed a room without the consent of the landlords in front of the house and had also made other additions and alterations in the property, in dispute, without the written consent of the landlords, it was alleged that the said acts on his part had materially altered the character of the accommodation and had, thus, impaired its utility. The averments to this effect were made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the ejectment application. Those paragraphs read, -

"3. That the respondent in contravention of the agreement in the lease deed has constructed a room with (without ?) the permission of the petitioners, in front of the house, the site which was meant for passage shown as yellow in the plan attached and as such he has made the construction in contravention of express stipulation in the lease deed. As such he had breached the contract and as such he is liable to be ejected."

"4. That the respondent has to also made additions and alterations in the property, in dispute, without the written consent of the petitioners."

"5. That the respondent has closed the sehan adjacent to the chhappra and removed the stair case from there and converted that sehan into a room and as such he changed the structure and changed the face and front of the house to make it appear as different from the original and thus materially altered the character and position of the accommodation."

The replies to these paragraphs in the written statement are, -

"3. That paragraph No. 3 is wrong and denied. The respondent has not made any new construction after the rent note dated 18.8.1969. The construction which is now existing on the site, in dispute, is the same as it stood at the time of execution of the rent note. However, the respondent has repaired the old construction. The respondent has not made any construction on the land which was meant for passage nor any place allegedly shown in yellow colour left for any passage. It was already under construction".

"4. That paragraph 4 is wrong and denied. The respondent has not made any addition or alteration in the old construction."

"5. That contents of paragraph No. 5 of the petition are wrong and denied. There was no pucca staircase on the premises. Wooden staircase was in use and the same is there. The respondent has not converted any sehan into any room. The respondent has not changed the structure nor the face or front of the house, nor has changed the original position or materially altered the character and position of the accommodation."

On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :

1. Whether the respondent has made alterations and additions in the disputed premises without the permission of the applicants as alleged in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the application ? If so, to what effect ?

2. Whether the respondents have removed the handpump from the disputed premises as alleged in paragraph 6 of the application ? If so, to what effect ?

3. Whether the respondent is statutory tenant as alleged in paragraph 11 of the application ? If so, to what effect ?

4. Relief.

Under issue No. 1, the Rent Controller found that in view of the terms of the rent-note, it was clear that the written permission of landlords was required for making additions and alterations in the premises, in dispute, and since no such permission was taken, the issue was decided in favour of the landlords. On this material issue, the fi