Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned judgment dated 20.8.2010 of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby eviction of the petitioner was ordered from the demised premises while accepting the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord against order dated 25..2.2009 of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dismissing the ejectment petition.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was ordered by the Appellate Authority on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent landlord and that the petitioner had impaired the utility and value of the demised premises. While discussing the grounds of impairment of the value and utility of the building, the lower Appellate Court observed as under:-

“17. This bone of controversy can be decided after perusing the evidence led by both the parties. In this regard, cross-examination of respondent Vijay Kumar is very much relevant because he has admitted in his cross-examination that previously there was wooden self in the shop in dispute. He has further admitted that in place of wooden shelf a concrete shelf ahs been constructed. He also admitted that floor tiles were fixed and at present there is flooring marble tiles. He also admitted that for fixing marble tiles walls were broken. This admission on the part of the respondent shows that for fixing marble tiles on the fllor and on the wall, the floor and walls were broken, but he has not taken any permission from land lord and from rent rent controller from doing so. He also admitted that in the civil suit filed by the appellant/petitioner in which stay was granted. He also admitted that contempt proceedings were also initiated against him for violation of the order of the civil court when the respondent did not stop making the addition and alteration in the demised shop, then the petitioner/appellant was compelled to file civil suit for permanent injunction which was titled as Sanjiv Maria and others versus Vijay Kumar and others which was decided by the court of Shri Jaspinder Singh, the then Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar, copy of said Judgment and decree is Ex.PX and Ex.PY and vide this decree, present respondent was restrained from causing any damage and making any addition alterations in the shop forming part of building no.115, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar. During the pendency of the suit, Local Commissioner was also appointed to tell whether Vijay Kumar respondent has made material alterations in the shop in dispute. Local Commissioner visited the shop on 4.5.2002 at about 4 PM and has reported that black granite marble has been placed on the slab/shelf. The slab has been supported from the ground by layers of bricks. Three wash basin have been fixed on the slab. Three taps with hand showers have been fixed with the wall. A mirror has also been fixed with the wall marked D to C for vision of the customer. A T.V. Make Joymax in running condition has been put on the slab and a stereo (Universal) with some cassettes has been put on the slab. Two baskets from which one filled with water and other empty have been laying on the ground under the slab. Water tanky (200 litters make Hindustan) was placed on the frame build with iron angles fixed with the wall. Out side the shop in dispute on the front side inserted with concrete material in the wall two pipes through which water is supplied to the shop in question. He also reported that the ground floor was built of white marble with different pieces of marble. A cement was filled in the joints of the marbles. While marble was also affixed with the wall upto the level of four feet from the ground floor. The joints were also filled with cement. White marble was not polished. Some portion of the ceiling of the shop in question has dampness. The slab and marble constructed seems to be newly. This report shows that respondent has made material addition and alteration in his shop