- (1.) This is landlords' revision petition which arises out of the proceedings initiated under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in which they sought eviction of the tenant on two grounds (1) non-payment of rent, and (2) the tenant having impaired the tenanted premises in a manner which resulted in the diminishing of its utility and value.
(2.) The arrears of rent having been cleared on the first date of hearing, the only controversy that survived to be settled between the parties was covered by issue No. 1 which is in the following terms : "1. Whether the respondent is liable for ejectment on the grounds mentioned in para No. 3 of the application ?" The tenant resisted the application and inter alia, took up the stand that the allegations that he had acted negligently and that fact resulted in the collapse of the Deorhi of the tenanted house, was false. It was further pleaded that the structure was very old, was built with small bricks and had, therefore, collapsed during the rainy season of 1969; that the same was got repaired with the permission of the landlords; and that a sum of Rs. 400/- that had been spent by him was agreed upon by the landlords to be adjusted from the rent. Krishan Kumar, one of the landlords, appeared in the witnesses box as AW2 in support of the allegations contained in the application. Ram Parkash who was produced as AW1 prepared three plans of the tenanted premises one of them showing the Deorhi in existence and the other showing the tenanted premises in its present form without the Deorhi. Since the tenant on the date fixed for his evidence i.e. 21-11-1972 did not adduce any evidence nor himself went into the witness-box, his evidence was closed by the Rent Controller and a request for adjournment was declined. The Rent Controller observed that since Krishan Kumar clearly stated in his evidence that the Deorhi had collapsed and the same had been rebuilt in a manner which involved material structural change in the building, without their permission, and that the tenant did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal, so it should be taken that the allegation covered under issue No. 1 stood established. He on that account ordered eviction of the tenant.
(3.) The appellate authority on an appeal being taken to it by the tenant reversed the aforesaid decision of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application.;