JUDGMENT :

Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2006, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, whereby the judgment dated 29.04.2002, passed by learned Rent Controller, Garhshankar, dismissing ejectment petition filed by the respondents/landlords, was set aside and ejectment order was passed against the petitioner.

2. Briefly, case of the landlords (respondents herein) is that the shop in question was on rent with the tenant (petitioner herein) @ Rs.20/- per month for the last more than 50 years. Respondents Subhash Kumari and Promila Kumari purchased the said shop along with superstructure from Balbir Sen - the original co-sharer, vide sale deed dated 13.12.1985 and they had become owners to the extent of ^1/2 share. Similarly, Vishwa Bandhu -original co-sharer sold his entire share along with superstructure and appurtenant rights in favour of respondents Raghubans Lal and Premwati and they also became owners in the said property to the extent of ^1/2 share.

3. The ejectment of tenant (petitioner herein) was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent; premises in question was in dilapidated condition and was unsafe and unfit for human habitation; the tenant had made unauthorized addition/alteration in the shop in dispute without consent of the landlords and thereby materially impaired the value and utility of demises premises and tenant is a source of nuisance.

4. The portion of the property, shown as ADEF in the site plan, fell down on 29.03.1996 due to its dilapidated condition and the tenant reconstructed the same without the consent of the landlords, thereby making unauthorized material alteration and also addition, by removing the door from its place and fixing the same at the other place. It was further alleged that the respondent/tenant converted the shop into an open verandah and also lowered down the roof of portion ADEF by 1-1 ^1/2 inch from the other existing portion of the roof, thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the demised shop. Moreover, the respondent/tenant had become source of nuisance due to nature of work being carried by him in the said premises i.e. business of transportation and loading/unloading of goods at the demised shop.

5. The tenant contested the petition and filed reply, submitting therein that the ejectment petition was preferred at the instance of one Bharat Bhushan - husband of respondent Promila Kumari, who was inimical towards him and intended to usurp the property in dispute and its surrounding area. Relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was also admitted that the shop in dispute was on rent with the tenant. Purchase of property by the landlords was denied. The shop in dispute was ownership of Raj Dulari. The site beneath the verandah, marked as ADEF, was not the part of the property of Raj Dulari. It was further submitted by the tenant that the building was fit for human habitation and the cracks in the wall were superficial. No material alteration was effected. There was verandah in the portion shown as ADEF which was constructed by the tenant himself and on the intervening night of 29/30.03.1996, at about 01:00 AM, a tourist bus collided with the verandah, as a result of which verandah collapsed and the tenant had to reconstruct the same. Neither he made any material alteration nor he removed any door from the site AD as no such door was at such place right from the beginning. He did not remove any western wall, as alleged by the petitioners. The rent was already tendered. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

'1. Whether the tender of the rent is short and invalid, if so its effect? OPP

2. Whether the premises in question have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPP

3. Whether the respondent has made unauthorised alterations and additions without the consent of the petitioners? OPP

4. Whether the act of the respondents in loading and unloading the trucks causes nuisance