A tenant who makes substantial additions and alterations to the rented premises without the landlord's consent, which impair the value and utility of the premises, is liable to be evicted.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This is tenants revision directed against the order of ejectment passed against him by the appellate Authority.

2. Landlord (respondent herein) filed an ejectment application against the tenant (petitioner herein). Ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that he has impaired the value and utility of the premises in question. It was alleged that the tenant without the consent of the landlord has made structural changes which are likely to impair the value and utility of the shop. It was alleged by the landlord that the tenant has changed the front of the shop by raising two pucca brick columns on the chabutra. The said brick columns are fixed with cement to the Chabutra beneath it and are of cement lintel resting on the said two columns being also of permanent nature; that the length of the shop has been extended by two feet and about 11.5 in front. Shutter has been fixed in front of the shop changing the internal area of the shop, and that the open space in front of the shop has been covered and included in the shop. The material used and the nature of construction is such that it is permanently attached to the shop. The Chabutra which already had its foundation on two pillars beneath it has been burdened with extra weight for use of the front portion in the shop. Upon notice, ejectment petition was contested by the tenant. Tenant pleaded that two columns were raised and rolling shutter installed about 8 years prior to the filing of ejectment petition with the consent of the landlord. Tenant pleaded that tenant had been paying licence-fee to the Municipal Committee regarding portion of the chabutra which in fact belongs to the Municipal Committee. Tenant further pleaded that there was no impairment of value and utility of the shop in question. Tenant also pleaded that landlord had been receiving rent for almost 8 years after the construction and therefore, the ground of ejectment that tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises, would be deemed to have been waived. Ejectment petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller primarily on the ground of acquiescence and waiver by the landlord. Rent Controller held that landlord was aware of the construction and with full knowledge received rent and therefore, it would be presumed that he had consented to the construction. However, on appeal filed by the landlord, appellate Authority has reversed the order of the Rent Controller and resultantly, ordered ejectment of the tenant. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant.

3. It has firstly been argued by learned counsel for the tenant that the mere act of raising columns on the Chabutra and fixing roof shutters by itself cannot be termed to be a construction of such substantial nature affecting the structure of the shop which can give rise to any cause of ejectment to the landlord. Counsel contended that construction raised by the tenant is trifle in nature and cannot be termed to be construction impairing the value and utility of the shop.

4. A reading of Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the 1949 Act) would show that if a tenant commits such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building, then he would be liable to be evicted. May be, by such acts the value of the building has gone up, but so far as utility is concerned it has to be seen from the point of view of the landlord of the premises and not of the tenant. For instance, if the owner wanted front portion of the premises to remain open and did not raise any construction thereon, the tenant cannot be allowed to change the nature of the premises and the moment he makes the changes, the utility of the building is certainly impaired from the view point of the landlord because there is no open space which he had left out in front of the building.

5. In Om Parkash v. Amar Singh and Anr., A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 617, the words materially altered under