Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE landlord -petitioners are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby the eviction sought by the petitioners for the reason that the tenants have materially impaired the value and utility of the building, was declined and consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed.
(2.) THE shop in dispute was rented out to the respondents by Mool Chand, predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners vide Rent Note dated 8.11.1968 @ Rs. 607 - per month. It is the case of the petitioners that two doors shown as C & E in the site plan, have been closed by the respondents and by such an act of the respondents, the uninterrupted flow of light and air has been affected. It is also alleged that there was a pillar in the Verandah in front of the shop, which has been removed by the respondent -tenants. It is further alleged that the respondent -tenants have also removed a door which opened in the Verandah and have installed a shutter in the Verandah and thus, made the Verandah part and parcel of the shop in dispute. Such alterations were made by the respondent -tenants without any permission from the petitioner -landlords sand thus, it was alleged that the respondents are liable to be evicted having made additions and alterations in the demised premises which have materially impaired the value and utility of the building. In reply, the tenant denied the effecting of any alteration and it was stated that all the alterations were made at the time of giving the property on rent to him and after he took the property on rent, he has not made any alteration in the same and the shop is in the same condition as it was at the time of inception of tenancy.
(3.) IN support of his claim, the landlord Jai Narain appeared as his own witness as PW -2 and also examined PW -3 Arjun Singh, who has proved the site plan Exhibit PW -3/A. PW -4 Khem Chand and PW -5 Ram Chander are the witnesses who have been examined to prove that there was a pillar in existence and the same has been removed and a shutter has been installed by making the verandah part and parcel of the shop in dispute. On the other hand, the tenant Radhey Shyam appeared as his own witness as RW -2 and produced other witnesses in support of his plea that the shop is in the same condition as it was let out to him.;