C.R. No.4010 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.4010 of 2007 Date of Decision: 11.2.2008 Sarwan Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Shiv Mandir Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J Prayer in this revision petition is, to set aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Sultanpur Lodhi and the appellate Authority, Kapurthala dated 30.7.2003 and 19.5.2007 respectively, whereby the petitioner's ejectment has been ordered and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of ejectment has been dismissed. The respondent, filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the petitioner had materially altered the demised premises, so as to diminish their value and utility. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from December 1997. The petitioner denied the aforementioned assertions and instead asserted that he had not made any material changes in the demised premises as he had purchased a vacant space, infront of the demised premises, from the Municipal Committee and raised construction thereon. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the respondent/petitioner is in arrear of rent C.R. No.4010 of 2007 2 with effect from December, 1997 till date at the rate of Rs.100/- P.M. ? If so its effect ? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent has made material alteration and additions in the rental premises without the consent of the petitioner ? If so its effect ? 3. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds laid down? 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection No.3 ? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner distorted his act and conduct to file the present petition ? OPR 6. Whether the petition has not been filed by competent person ? OPR 7. Relief.” The plea regarding arrears of rent was not pressed. As regards the assertion that the petitioner had raised construction that had materially diminished the value and utility of the building, it was held that the petitioner had raised construction on a vacant area of the tenanted premises, thereby leaving no approach or passage to the shop. The petitioner's contention that the vacant area did not vest in the respondent was negatived. The petitioner's assertion that he had purchased the said land from the Municipal Committee was found to be incorrect. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, after due consideration of the findings of fact returned by the learned Rent Controller, C.R. No.4010 of 2007 3 dismissed the appeal. The sole contention, urged by counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent leased out a shop. The vacant area infront of the shop does not form a part of the tenanted premises. The vacant land belongs to the Municipal Committee and was purchased by the petitioner. This fact is established by resolutions and orders exhibited in evidence. A perusal of the rent note clearly discloses that the vacant land is not a part of the tenanted premises and, therefore, as the construction raised by the petitioner, in his own land, the impugned judgements be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. The respondent-landlord prayed for ejectment of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner had made such material alterations, in the demised premises, as had impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The learned Rent Controller, as also the Appellate Authority returned concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. Both Courts held that the petitioner had raised construction on vacant land that comprised a part of the demised premises. The construction so raised obstructed access to the demised premises. The Courts below also considered the evidence on record and examined the resolutions passed by the Municipal Committee and upon a considered appraisal thereof, arrived at a conclusion that the land purchased by the petitioner did not answer to the description of the open space. It was, therefore, specifically held that as the identity of the property allegedly purchased by the petitioner did not answer to the description of the open space, the petitioner's assertion that the vacant space belonging to the Municipal Committee was incorrect. C.R. No.4010 of 2007 4 Admittedly, the petitioner has raised construction on the vacant space infront of the shop. It is not denied that the shop can only be accessed through the construction raised by the petitioner. A tenant, who raises construction in tenanted premises, so as to deny access to the constructed portion of the tenanted premises, violates the terms and conditions of his lease and, therefore, impaires their value and utility. A relevant extract from the judgement of the Rent Controller would be appropriate to place this fact in perspective. “Now, admittedly he has constructed a shop in front of the built portion of the tenanted premises. It is his own admission that he has closed door of the shop, which was opening towards mandir premises and now there is no entry to that shop from any side. To my mind, it has badly impaired value and utility of the tenanted premises and it becomes an egg shell, even it site where shop has been constructed by respondent is considered not to be a part of tenanted premises. Respondent has closed the only entrance to the tenanted premises, which adversely affects the rights of landlord/petitioner and without a passage value of the property is diminished...” The said finding was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is, therefore, apparent that by denying access to the constructed portion of the premises, the petitioner effected such material alterations, as had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below, do not disclose any error of jurisdiction or of law, as would warrant interference by this Court. C.R. No.4010 of 2007 5 As regards the petitioner's contention that the vacant area did not constitute a part of the tenanted premises, the said assertion has been negatived by both Courts below. The petitioner has failed to establish that the vacant area, did not form a part of the tenanted premises or that he had purchased the area from the Municipal Committee. I find no reason factual or legal, to reverse these findings. No merit. Dismissed. 11.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE