IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2401 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Ravinder Singh -----Petitioner Vs. Mukhtiar Singh -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging order dated 22.12.2006 of Rent Controller, Dasuya ordering his eviction from the demised premises and judgment dated 15.1.2011 of the Appellate Authroity dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered by the authorities below, on the ground that the petitioner has effected material alterations and thus, has impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute, by removing the intervening wall in between C.R. No.2401 of 2011 the demised shop and the shop under the tenancy of Balwinder Singh (brother of the petitioner). 3. The authorities below on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding holding that the petitioner has removed the said wall which was a load-bearing wall and removal of the same has impaired the value and utility of both the shops which belong to Mukhtiar Singh, respondent. 4. Challenging the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings of the authorities below are result of misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence on record and there is no evidence on record that the petitioner has removed the said wall. It is the further case of the petitioner that the landlord has failed to prove that there was any damage or alternation to the demised shop and in absence of any such evidence, the eviction of the petitioner cannot be ordered on the said ground. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 6. The question whether the petitioner has removed the intervening wall in between the demised shop and the shop under the tenancy of his brother is a question of fact. The petitioner has placed on record rent agreements executed by the landlord with him and his brother Balwinder Singh. 7. From the description of properties given in the aforesaid agreements, it is clearly made out that these were two 2 C.R. No.2401 of 2011 separate shops having a wall in between both the shops. Admittedly, the wall between both the shops is not existing now. 8. In view of the aforesaid fact alone which could not be disputed, the findings of both the authorities below cannot be faulted with. 9. Dismissed. October 31, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3