- (1.) The respondent is a tenant of two shops and one Kothri detailed in the petition and situate in Miller Ganj, Ludhiana under the petitioner. The petitioner filed an ejectment petition against the respondent on various grounds, including that the respondent had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide order dated February 10, 1976, found no merit in the petition and dismissed the same. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated June 3, 1977, against which the present revision is directed.
(2.) The only ground pressed on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was that the respondent had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. This ground has again been pressed before me.
(3.) Roop Chand is the attorney of the petitioner. He appeared as a witness before the Rent Controller and stated that the respondent had broken the floors of the shops and Kothri and he had also demolished the walls of the latrine and intervening wall between Kothri No. 48 and Shop No. 49. No other witness was produced to support the solitary statement of Roop Chand. Two plans were also produced on behalf of the petitioner. One plan was prepared on May 6, 1959 and the other on January 2, 1974. A comparison of the two plans reveals that a wall of the Kothri which is shown intact in the plan prepared on May 6, 1959 has two openings in the other plan prepared on January 2, 1974. It is also shown in the second plan that the walls of the latrines and urinal on the first floor had fallen. The Appellate Authority has observed that the comparison of the two plans does not show that the floors of the demised premises had broken. Harbans Singh, one of the partners of the respondent, stated in his statement that the floors or any other part of the demised premises had not been demolished nor had any alteration been made in the intervening walls. His statement was not challenged in cross-examination. It is evident that the Courts below have rightly held that the evidence led by the petitioners does not prove that the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.;