- (1.) This petition for revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , dated 7th of November, 1970, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing the petitioner to vacate shop No. 15 in the Aggarwal Market, Gurgaon, has been upheld. The petitioner's eviction has been ordered on the grounds : (i) that he had sublet the premises to Shyam Sunder, respondent 2, and (ii) that he had impaired the value and the utility of the premises by putting structure on the platform in front of the shop.
(2.) In assailing the order of eviction, Mr. A. N. Mittal who has argued the case for the petitioner, contends that apart from the fact that the findings arrived at by the Courts below cannot be sustained if the evidence is reassessed by this Court, the plea of subletting could not he entertained in this case as on a previous application by the landlord this plea had been turned down Reference in this connection is made to the order of the Rent Controller dated the of January, 1969 Exhibit D. 3. On reference to this order find that the same plea of subletting was taken by the landlord but it was found against him. The judgment being inter parties, this finding cannot be sustained.
(3.) Even after ruling out the plea of sub-letting, I, however, find that the impugned order must be upheld on the ground that by making construction on the platform attached to the shop in dispute be bad committed an act which is likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises. There is concurrent finding recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the present petitioner had erected two walls 10 feet high on the platform and covered the Fame with tin sheets and that thereby lie had diminished the utility and impaired the value of the premises. The relevant allegations made in this connection by the landlord are contained in paragraph 2 (ii) of his application. They run thus : That the shop in dispute is one of the shops in the Aggarwal. Market of the petitioner. The said market consists of a row of shops with an open platform running in front of all the shops. The respondents have raised to 10 ft. high walls shown in yellow on the continue, platform and has covered it with a tin shed room and has thereby destroyed the said platform altogether and included it within this shop. It has also destroyed the symmetry of the market and affected the continuity of the platform. And the form and value of the shop as well as the whole market has been irrevocably impaired and badly affected." In reply to this averment, the present petitioner merely stated as follows : "Para No. 2 (ii) is admitted to the extent that the shop in question is situated within the aggarwal market, Gurgaun. Rest of the contents of this pars are wrong and denied." The matter having been put in issue, the Respondent besides himself coming to the witness box examined Shuggan Chand. A. W. 2 and Raghunath, A.W. 3. Though the present petitioner Raj Kumar himself came into the witness-box, curiously enough he did not titter even a word about this matter and did not even assert that the allegations made were false or incorrect. It was in these circumstances that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority relying upon the landlord's evidence accepted this plea Mr. Mittal urged on the basis of Nanak Chand v. Inderjit and others, 1969 RCR(Rent) 887, that it is open to this court to reassess the evidence despite the concurrence finding recorded by the two courts below Mr. H.L. Sarin on the other hand appearing for the respondent has referred to Neta Ram and others v. Jiwan Lal, 1962, 1962 64 PunLR 694, wherein it has been observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court that lowers vesting in the High Court under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Act did not, however, include the power to reverse the concurrent finding without showing that those findings were erroneous. In view of the fact that the petitioner in his own statement has not even dared to controvert the landlords allegation regarding the impairment of the value and utility of the premises. I had no justification for reversing the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Authorities below. In fact. I am of the opinion that these findings are justified as it is clearly established that on the open platform, which was in front of the shop and a part of the premises two walls 10 feet high had been raised and covered by the tin sheets. This had nit only spoiled the look of the shop but has also resulted in obstructing tight and air to the main shop and thus affected its utility. This conduct of the present petitioner is clearly covered by section l3 (2) (iii) of the Rent Restriction Act and, according, his eviction is perfectly in order.;