Civil Revision No. 6012 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6012 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.8.2010 Sawaran Singh …Petitioner Versus H.U.F. M/s Birbhan Jyoti Parshad …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner/tenant has assailed the concurrent finding, recorded by both the Courts below, that by raising level of the roof from 12 feet to 18 feet, the petitioner has impaired the value and utility of the demised shop. The petitioner was tenant in the demised premises at the rate of Rs.360/- per month along with house tax since 1.4.1998. The eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on three grounds. Firstly that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises by demolishing the old structure and constructing a new one, illegally and unauthorisedly, without the consent of the landlord. Secondly, the tenant was in arrears of rent and lastly, the tenant ceased to occupy the premises, continuously for the period of four months. The landlord pressed only one ground before the Rent Controller that by the act of the tenant, value and utility of the shop has Civil Revision No. 6012 of 2009 2 been materially impaired to the detriment of the landlord. The Rent Controller, Kaithal, relying upon the evidence of the petitioner, who appeared as AW.1, Local Commissioner and the photographs, came to the conclusion that from the report of Local Commissioner Ex.A11, photographs Ex.A11/C, supported by negatives Ex.AJ to Ex.AN, it is apparent that the old roof was demolished and a new one was constructed. The old beams, over which two pillars existed, were also affected. Relying upon the entire case law, the Rent Controller gave the following three findings. “A) The tenant had made a new construction. B) Such construction was raised without the consent of the landlord. C) Such construction had materially impaired and affected the value of the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the last finding given by the Rent Controller and submits that by demolishing the roof and constructing a new one, rather he has enhanced the value of the property. The Appellate Authority observed as under:- “...The photographs forming the part of the report Annexures G and E clearly reflected that after demolition the level of the wall had been raised from 12 feet to 18 feet and the newly constructed wall had been plastered from inside. Height of the shop having been raised from 12 feet to 18 feet was further reflected in the photographs Annexures B, C and D. To the naked eyes the alleged alteration Civil Revision No. 6012 of 2009 3 having been made in the tenanted premises is visible. This report itself provides full corroboration to the testimony of Brij Bhushan AW2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Dev Samaj Society v. Bimla Rani and Others 2009(1) Recent Civil Reports 804, Waryam Singh v. Baldev Singh 2003(21) Haryana Rent Reporter 1 and G. Reghunathan v. K.V. Varghese 2006(1) Apex Court Judgments 01 (S.C.), to contend that each and every construction made by the tenant will not impair the utility and value of the property unless evidence to this effect is led and a categoric finding is returned. This Court is of the view that the judgments, so relied, are on the facts of those cases. In the present case, the petitioner has raised the walls of the premises, demolished the old roof and constructed a new one raising the level from 12 feet to 18 feet. It is a common knowledge that the local laws prescribe the maximum height of the building. If the walls of the property and the roof is raised from 12 feet to 18 feet, right of the landlord to make another two floors is diminished. Therefore, in the present case, material impairment and value of the property is writ large. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and well reasoned findings of both the Courts below are upheld. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 13, 2010 “DK”