Civil Revision No.1921 of 1991 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1921 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision:27.04.2009 Jagdish Chander Mehta (died) through LRs ............Petitioner Vs. Bharat Kumar Thakur .........Respondent Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The landlord's petition for ejectment was ordered on the ground that the tenant had carried out unauthorized constructions that materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, thus rendering himself liable for eviction. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently held the contentions of the landlord have been established. 2. The tenant, who originally filed the revision has died and his legal representatives were added as parties to prosecute the petition. At the time when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners but learned counsel for the respondent is ready. Having regard to the fact that the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority was of the year 1991 and the rent petition itself had been filed as early as on 23.03.1985, I have Civil Revision No.1921 of 1991 (O&M) -2- considered the case on its merits by reference to the records with the help of learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The Rent Controller has found that the tenant has converted an open courtyard into a room while the rent note clearly prohibited any form of construction by the tenant without the consent of the landlord. 4. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller by making reference to the fact that the landlord was entitled to obtain eviction even if only one ground of eviction was established while the ground urged (in this case non-payment of rent) was still not proved. Adverting to decisions rendered by this Court reported in 1982 PLR 591 and 1987 RCJ 37, the Appellate Authority held that the material alteration as impairing the value and utility must be considered from the landlord's perspective and an unauthorized construction shall be taken always to materially impair the value and utility of the building. The material impairment that the tenant's activity has resulted to the building has been considered by the two authorities below in all its dimensions on the touchstone of the law laid down by this Court and I find myself in agreement with the reasoning rendered by the authorities below. The orders of eviction rendered are confirmed. Civil revision petition is dismissed. Time for eviction shall be three months. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 27, 2009 Pankaj*