DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord filed the ejectment application dated March 6, 1978, seeking ejectment of his tenant Ramesh Chand from the shop, in dispute, on the allegations that the same was rented out to him with effect from April 1, 1976, at the rate of Rs. 31.50 per month, but later on the rent was enhanced to Rs. 35 p.m. exclusive of house-tax. The ejectment of the tenant was sought inter alia on the ground that the shop was given for selling bakery goods, but the tenant had since installed a furnace unauthorisedly. He had also materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. He had carried out alterations in the shop by removing the gate from the wall EF and had installed it in wall AB, which was earlier in the verandah. The tenant in his reply pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 31.50 per month including house tax. The other allegations were denied. It was pleaded that the shop, in dispute, was leased out for the manufacture of backery goods from the very beginning. The furnace and the smoke pipe were set up by the tenant with the permission of the landlord who never objected to the manufacture of the backery goods. The tenant also denied having made material alterations in the shop or to have impaired its value or utility. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had failed to prove that the alteration was made in the shop, in dispute, after the same was let out. The bakery goods are being prepared therein for the last many years and so it cannot be presumed that the alteration was made after the building was let out with the consent of the landlord. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated August 4, 1983. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller, and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant submitted that in the notice, Exhibit A.3, the landlord never complained that the tenant had converted the verandah into a room. The only allegation made in paragraph 8 thereof was that the tenant had constructed a furnace in the premises and had made openings in the roof for throwing out the smoke. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the authorities below in this behalf was perfectly valid and does not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.