Civil Revison No.3607 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.3607 of 2008 Date of decision:28.01.2010. Anil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Ravi Shankar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. In a concurrent finding, the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority upheld the plea raised by the respondent- landlord that the petitioner-tenant, by raising construction and by including the portion of the verandah in the shop in dispute, had impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Amar Nath Vs. Guru Ramdass Textile Mills, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 595 and Atthar Mal (died) through LRs Vs. Satish Kumar Aggarwal, 2002(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 96 in support of the averment that the proven construction could not be said to have impaired the value and utility of the premises as it could be removed at some cost. The view, obtained in the above quoted two Single Bench rulings of this Court, does not advance the plea on behalf of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vipin Kumar Vs. Roshan Lal Anand, 1993(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 675 (S.C.) and Durga Seeds Civil Revison No.3607 of 2008 -2- Farm Vs. Raj Kumari Chadha, AIR 1995 S.C. 1160. In Vipin Kumar's case (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court examined the provisions of Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act and held that once the landlord proves the factum of material alterations made by the tenant in the rented premises, the Court can infer its adverse effect on the value and utility of the building keeping in view the nature of the alterations. Similarly, in Durga Seeds Farm's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that if the landlord is exposed to peril of resumption by raising any construction which is contrary to the terms of the allotment, then that would also fall within the realm of material impairment. By the very nature of things, the impugned alteration being without any sanction would render the landlord to the peril of demolition. In the light of the Apex Court judicial pronouncements in Vipin Kumar Vs. Roshan Lal Anand, 1993(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 675 (S.C.) and Durga Seeds Farm Vs. Raj Kumari Chadha, AIR 1995 S.C. 1160, there is no case for interference with the concurrent finding aforementioned. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. January 28, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE