M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THIS petition filed by the tenant-petitioners under sub- section (5) of section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act'), challenges concurrent finding of fact on the issue as to whether the tenant-petitioners have made material alterations in the demised premises resulting in impairment of its value and utility. Both the courts below have concurrently found that there are material alterations and additions made by the tenant-petitioners in the demised premises without the permission of the landlord-respondents resulting in impairment of its value and utility.
(2.) THE landlord-respondents are owners of the demised premises which were let out to tenant-petitioner No. 1 Sh. Parkash Chand, at a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. A rent note dated 1st June, 1969 for a period of one year was executed. The tenancy having continued even after the period of one year, acquired a statutory character. The landlord-respondents filed ejectment petition under section 13 of the Act on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1st October, 1980, personal necessity of one of the landlord-respondent, namely, Shri Jagdish Chand, subletting by tenant-petitioner No. 1 to tenant-petitioner No. 2 to 7 and that the tenant-petitioners Nos. 3 to 7 have made material and unauthorised additions and alterations affecting the utility and value of the demised premises. The only ground which survives for consideration of this Court is the last one. The tenant-petitioners contested the ejectment petition and all other pleas were decided in their favour except the ground of material and unauthorised additions affecting the value and utility of the demised premises. The stand of the tenant-petitioners on the aforementioned plea was that they had not made any unauthorised additions or alterations which might have affected the value and utility of the premises. It was, however, admitted that one dry latrine was controverted (converted ?) into a flush latrine. The Rent Controller, after thorough examination of the evidence produced, recorded a finding that structural changes have been made by the tenant-petitioners adversely affecting the value and utility of the property. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the finding recorded by the Rent Controller. After discussing the evidence produced in considerable details in paras 13, 14 and 15, the learned Appellate Authority concluded that the material alterations and additions in the demised premises have been made in its opinion reads as under :- "In my opinion, from the evidence adduced by the applicants-landlords on the file, it can be safely concluded that the appellants had made material additions/alterations in the property in dispute. Admittedly, a flush latrine has been constructed. It is not proved that any dry latrine would have been provided at the place where the flush latrine now exists because it immediately abuts the passage and the Deorhi. From the statement of Sh. Hem Raj coupled with his report Ex.A-2 and the statement of Sh. Shanti Sarup, it is further apparent that various structural alterations and additions have been made in the property as detailed in the report Ex.A2 and the plaint Ex.A3. The fact that unauthorised additions/alterations have been made is further strengthened from the fact that there now exist 11 rooms and a verandah as admitted by Sh. Shamsher Singh as well as by Sh. Parkash Chand RWs, whereas only seven rooms and a verandah existed in the property in the year 1978-79 indicating the additions/alterations were made thereafter. Then there is no reason to disbelieve the dis-interested testimony of Sh. Malvinder Singh Overseer, Municipal Committee, Sunam who had detected the unauthorised additions/alterations being made and had made his reports, the copies of which are Ex.A9 and Ex.A10. The notices were issued on the basis of those reports under the signatures of Sh. Shiv Kumar Mittal, Executive Officer (PW6) under sections 195, Punjab Municipal Act. Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 are the copies of those notices/orders."
(3.) APART from the finding that there were structural alterations and additions, learned Appellate Authority also raised adverse inference from the fact that only tenant-petitioner No. 1 had appeared as a witness in support of the defence. His statement has not been considered significant for the reason that he has not been staying in the premises and as such the first hand knowledge and information which could have come forward from those who were staying in the demised premises, did not come forward. This fact further fortified the conclusion that material alterations and additions have been made in the demised premises.;