- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the landlord against the concurrent findings recorded against him by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, thereby dismissing the eviction petition.
(2.) THE facts of the case are as under :-Shop No. 173 situated in Jagraon, was owned by Kasturi Lai and Darbar Chand. Muni Lai was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 41. 10 Annas -8 paise on June 1, 1963. As per the rent note Ex. A-4 dated May 21, 1963, executed by the tenant, it appears that the premises in dispute consisted of three rooms and one verandah on the ground floor. The landlord, thereafter, sought eviction of the tenant on four grounds (a) that the tenant had not paid the rent from April 1, 1972 (b) that the period of tenancy had expired and the tenancy, accordingly, stood terminated (c) that the respondent had, without the consent of the landlord, constructed one Bhatti in the premises in question and started the business of manufacturing of Soap, thereby, changing the user of the premises and also materially impairing the value and utility thereof and (d) that the respondent had removed the door of a room and converted the verandah into a room thereby preventing the ingress and outgress of the landlord through the stairs for going to the upper storey.
(3.) THE tenant resisted the application and controverted the allegations made. The parties faced the trial on the following issues : 1. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of disputed premises ? OPA 2. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the disputed premises without consent of applicants as'alleged ? OPA 3. Whether the respondent has breached the terms of tenancy, as alleged in para No. 3 (i) of the petition ? OPA 4. Whether the respondent has been guilty of nuisance as alleged. If so, its effect ? OPA. 5. Whether a valid notice was served by the applicants to the respondents ? OPA 6. Whether applicant is a mere statutory tenant ? If so, its effect ?opa. 7. Relief. The Rent Controller returned the findings on all the issues in favour of the tenant and, accordingly, dismissed the eviction application. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and made a serious challenge to the findings of the Rent Controller only on issue Nos. 1 and 2. The Appellate Authority also found that the conversion of the verandah into a room and the blocking of the stair case could not be said to have materially altered or impaired the utility of the disputed premises but on the question of change of user held that as no specific purpose had been indicated in the rent note Exhibit A- 4, for which the shop could be used, there was no change of user and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The landlord has come up against the two orders mentioned above.;