Unauthorized permanent enclosure of verandahs and installation of a door by a tenant are acts likely to impair materially the value or utility of the demised premises within the meaning of Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether unauthorised permanent version of verandahs into rooms and installation of a door by a tenant, acts likely to impair materially the value or utility of the demised premises , in the meaning of Section 13(2)(iii) the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949, is the somewhat interesting question which has necessitated this reference to the Division Bench.

2. At the revisional stage the matrix of facts giving rise to the aforesaid issue are not in serious dispute and may, therefore, be briefly noticed. Narain Singh petitioner (now deceased) had preferred a petition for ejectment against Messrs. Bakson Laboratories and its sole proprietor Shri R.L. Soni from Bungalow No.456-L. Model Town, Jullundur. Amongst various other grounds it was specifically alleged that the respondent had covered the verandahs on the front and back sides of the bungalow and had opened a door by breaking a wall of a room and thus diminished the value and utility of the premises and further that their presence was a nuisance to the petitioner and his neighbours. In contesting the ejectment petition the respondent had admitted the tenancy and had controverted the allegations in the petition. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the petition is bad for non-joining of necessary parties?

2.Whether a valid notice was served in this case?

3.Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in the petition?

4.Relief.

Issues Nos.1 and 2 were found in favour of the petitioner but issue No.3 was decided against him and consequently the petition was dismissed. The Rent Controller noticed that the parties were really in contest on the ground of the diminishing of the value and the utility of the premises because of the conversion of the verandahs and the installation of the door by the tenant. He found as a fact and in essence it was virtually the admitted position that the front and the back verandahs had been enclosed with a brick wall with the use of cement mortar and a door had been opened in the wall in place of a window. Nevertheless he took the view that since the walls built by the respondent could be removed at any time there was no impairment of the utility of the premises.

3. On appeal, the appellate authority took the view that the only ground surviving was with regard to the material impairment of the value and the utility of the demised premises. It was observed as follows :-

"..Thus the only point to be seen in this case is whether with the construction of temporary walls in the front and back verandahs and turning of a window into a door it can be said that material impairment of either the value or utility of the building has been brought about."

Affirming the findings of the trial Court the appellate authority also took the view that the offending walls joined with the other parts of the building can be removed at any time and further that the installation of the door was something which had been done by the tenant for his convenience and the building could be put back to its old shape. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed.

4. The present civil revision first came up before my learned brother S.P. Goyal J., sitting singly. Noticing the meaningful issue involved and some conflict of precedent on the point he referred the same for a decision by the Division Bench.

5. It would be plain from the above re sume of facts that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are that without the authority or sanction of the landlord the respondent-tenant had enclosed the front verandah of the residential bungalow by a brick wall with cement mortar and some glass-panes therein. The rear verandah of the bungalow has again been converted into a room in the same fashion. Further the window of the kitchen has been removed and a door has been permanently installed in the wall. The crucial issue, therefore, is whether these acts would come within the mischief of