JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 1125 of 1984, dated July 18, 1984 confirming the decree of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for short the Act. The ground for eviction ultimately upheld by the courts below was that the appellant had constructed a wall in the verandah of the demised premises and put up a door which materially impaired the value of utility of the building. Shri. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had not constructed the offending construction. Even if it is so there is no proof adduced by the landlord that by such a construction the value or utility of the building had been materially impaired. As such the decree of eviction is clearly illegal. In support thereof he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Om Prakash v. Amar Singh (1987) 1 SCC 458 : AIR 1987 SC 617).

2. The question, therefore, is whether the finding of courts below which concurrently found that the appellant had constructed a wall in the verandah which materially affected the value or utility of the shop is vitiated by law. The building consists two shops and the appellant was inducted into one such shop. He constructed the wall in the verandah and put up the door. Therefore, it is a finding of fact which we cannot evaluate on the evidence and upset that finding. It was also found that the wall was constructed without the permission of the landlord. Due to construction the value or utility of the building has been materially affected. Section 13(1) provides thus :

"A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section, or in pursuance of an order made under Section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1947 as subsequently amended)."

Clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 provides that "if the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land", the Rent Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land. If the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application. It is, therefore, clear that if the tenant had committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building, he is liable to ejectment. The finding recorded by the Controller is that on account of the construction of the wall and putting up a door the flow of light and air had been stopped. He removed the fixtures. So the value of the demised shop has been impaired and utility of the building also is impaired. The impairment of the value of utility of the building is from the point of the landlord and not of the tenant. The first limb of Clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 is impairment of the building due to acts committed by the tenant and the second limb is of the utility or value of the building has (sic having) been materially impaired. The acts of the tenant must be such that by erecting the wall he had materially impaired the value or utility of the demised premises. It is contended by Mr. Prem Malhotra that the landlord should prove as to how it is materially affected and that there is no evidence adduced by the landlord. We find no force in the contention. By constructing the wall, whether the value or utility of the building has materially been impaired is an inferential fact to be deduced from proved facts. The proved facts are that the appellant without the consent of the landlord had constructed the wall and put up a door therein as found by the Rent Controller, the flow