- (1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of the tenant against whom application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller but has been allowed in appeal.
(2.) The landlord-respondent sought the ejectment of his tenant-petitioner from the premises in dispute inter alia on the ground that the tenant had impaired materially the value and utility of the demised premises. It was stated that on the ground floor, the respondent had closed two out of 3 khans and that in the first floor also two out of three khans had been closed. It ws also maintained that floor of the first khan had been lowered by two feet by digging and also that on the first floor, two out of three windows had been permanently closed. It ws also averred that the tenant had constructed a bath room and kitchen on the first floor and closing two out of three khans and that on the top roof, the tenant had constructed pacca latrines, all without his consent and permission. In this situation, it was alleged that these alterations have impaired materially the value and utility of the premises in dispute. Hence, the tenant was liable to ejectment. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant these facts were denied. It was pleaded that the alleged structures were already there when the premises were rented out in the year 1954. In any case, the alleged alterations if any did not impair the utility of the demised building. The Rent Controller found that the landlord has failed to prove that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the building in dispute. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that from the evidence on the record particularly the report of the Local Commissioner it has been amply proved on the record that because of the alterations and additions in the demised building, the utility and value of the same has been materially impaired. As a result of this finding, the order of ejectment was passed. Dis-satisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision in this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the report of the Local Commissioner could not be relied upon because the objections filed against the said report were never decided by the Rent Controller. In any case, according to the learned counsel, the Local Commissioner was not competent to give any opinion as to whether the alterations, if any, have impaired the utility of the demised building or not. Any opinion given by him in his report was of no consequence and should not have been relied upon by the appellate Authority.;