J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord Lall C. Bhawani sought the ejectment of the tenant M/s Kailash Pictures from the demised premises which were rented out in the year 1963 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- but later on the rent was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month. According to the landlord, the verandah in the property was converted into a room by raising pacca walls by the tenant. Thus, according to him, the value and utility of the premises had been materially impaired by this act of the tenant. The stand taken by the tenant was that when he was given additional accommodation after the original tenancy, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month from Rs. 200/- per month. It was denied by the tenant that he had raised any alteration in the premises as alleged. According to the tenant it was incorrect that he had converted the verandah on the first floor into a room. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the alterations were made by the tenant in the demised premises after the inception of the tenancy without the written consent of the landlord and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. The alteration made by him had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller. In paragraph 12 of the judgment under revision it inter alia observed :- "That verandah is now admitted to be a room by this witness of the respondent. There can be thus no doubt is saying that the written reply of the respondent, if taken with the evidence on record, proves beyond doubt that the verandah, before the mianies on the first floor has been converted into a room by raising walls and fixing a door." Thus, it was concluded in paragraph 13 of the said judgment :- "So, keeping in view all these circumstances, it can be said without any hesitation that the conversion of the verandah into a room has materially impaired the value and utility of the property." Consequently, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was maintained. At the time of the motion hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner that the local commissioner was appointed by the Rent Controller, but he never went to record the statement at Ludhiana. This fact was controverted by filing an affidavit by the opposite side.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact, the evidence of the witness to be recorded at Ludhiana on commission was very material. Since the local commissioner never went to record his statement it was a fit case which should be remanded for recording evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the tenant has not materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises as is found by the two authorities below.;