Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of ejectment passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala (exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act), whereby he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised shop on the ground that he has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.
(2.) IN this case, the shop in dispute was let out to the petitioner by the respondent -landlords in the year 1970 @ Rs. 160/ - per month. In September, 1986, the respondent -landlords filed the ejectment application against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act on two grounds, i.e., for non -payment of rent from 1.2.1985 till the date of filing of the ejectment application; and secondly that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In this regard, it was alleged that the petitioner had affixed a rolling iron shutter in front of the shop in dispute after removing the wooden door and by raising pucca pillars. By the amended petitions, it was further alleged that the petitioner had closed a door of the shop by raising pucca wall in connivance with his brother, who was also a tenant in the adjoining shop. In the same wall, he had also opened a door at different place towards the open side of the back of the shop under tenancy of his brother Gulshan Kumar. The petitioner had also encroached upon the open land and had raised construction of walls and roof with the help of CGI sheets. It was alleged that all these alterations were made by the petitioner without the consent of the landlords. It was further alleged that the petitioner had made structural additions and alterations in the shop in dispute which impaired its value and utility. The petitioner contested the said ejectment application. The arrears of rent as claimed in the ejectment petition were tendered on the first date of hearing along with interest and costs. Thereafter, the said ground of ejectment did not survive.
(3.) REGARDING the alleged material alteration and impairment of the value and utility of the denied shop, it was alleged that the petitioner did not affix any rolling iron shutter and raised pucca pillars in the demised shop. lt was also denied that the petitioner had made any structural additions or alterations in the shop in dispute. It was alleged that the shop was in the same condition since long. Therefore, the landlords were estopped from raising such pleas. Regarding closing of the door, opening of a new door at a different place and encroaching upon the area of landlords, and raising construction thereon, it was stated that the petitioner did not make any such additions, alterations or constructions.;