Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.: (Oral)- The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved against the eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 15.11.2014 on the grounds of material alternation of the demised premises without the consent of the landladies/respondents.

2. It is the case of the respondent/landladies that respondent was inducted as a tenant in the one ‘khan’ of shop by the previous owner and predecessor in interest of the appellants, namely, Om Parkash who had newly constructed the entire building of which the shop is a part comprising eight shops and the residential area. The tenant had executed a rent note dated 15.07.1980 and the period of tenancy was from 14.07.1980 to 13.10.1980 @ Rs.500/- per month, which was increased to Rs.1,000/- per month. They had become the owners of the shop in question through decree against Om Parkash their father and the tenant’s status had became of a statutory tenant under the payment of the said amount and he was continuing in possession.

3. Resultantly, the eviction petition was filed on 17.05.2002 for arrears of rent from 01.10.1999 alongwith the issue of material impairment and value of the shop in question on account of replacing and raising the front beam of shop upto the height of 3 feet raising level of the floor upto 11/2 and by demolishing the back wall measuring 9x10-1-4 and installing a beam therein. A new shutter had also been put over of different size and, therefore, the tenant had endangered the upper two stories of the shop by breaking the beam, which was very strongly built and had replaced the same by a weak beam. It was further averred that he has demolished the backwall of one ‘khan’ shop and installed the beam therein and trespassed into the rear portion of the building now owned by the brothers of the landladies and therefore deprived the passage of the rear portion. The premises were also required for the brother of the appellants Hemant Kumar who is stated to be a member of the Sirsa District Bar Association and wanted to start practice.

4. In reply the rate of rent @ Rs.500/- was admitted and that it had been increased to Rs.1,000/-, which was reduced into writing on 13.10.1999. The landladies had not submitted any rent note and they should be asked to produce original rent notice. It was further submitted that the respondent is in possession of the area of 10 (1/3) x 27 feet, which was two ‘khan’ shops and the petitioners had filed the petition for the area 11 (1-4) x 13 (10-1/2) feet. The details of the rent tendered were also given. The premises in question were taken from Om Parkash and the tenant has not replaced any beam of the shop. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

“1) Whether the respondent is in arrears of the rent? OPP

2) Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value of demise premises? OPP

3) Whether respondent has committed such acts as nuisance to the persons of neighbourhood of the demise premises? OPP

4) Whether petitioners require the demised premises for their personal use? OPP

5) Relief.”

5. The issue of bonafide requirement was rejected by the Rent Controller alongwith the ground of material impairment by holding that there is no evidence on the file that the intervening wall had been removed and value of shop in question had been impaired and no building expert has been examined. It was, accordingly, held that on account of shops being transferred in favour of the daughters, it is not necessary that the landowner should be the owner, but the landowner may be landlord of the property in question. Exhibit D-1 was relied upon to hold that there was an agreement as such between Om Parkash that he was owner in possession of the room which had been given to the tenant and it was included in the shop in question. The length of the shop was thus increased and rent was thus to go up. It was, accordingly, held that once Om Parkash had given the consent to include the room in the shop by removing the interven