IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1872 of 1990 Date of decision:19.05.2009 Har Bhagwan (deceased) through his L.Rs. ...Petitioners versus Attar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the respondents. ----- 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 tenant who was directed to be evicted, is the revision-petitioner before this Court. 2. The grounds of eviction were non-payment of rent, material alteration that impaired the value and utility of the building, cessation of the tenant to occupy the building and that building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The case was found to merit consideration only on the issue whether the tenant had materially altered the demised premises. The Rent Controller however framed two issues relating to the locus standi of the petitioner to file the application and also the ground whether the relationship of the landlord and the tenant existed, in view of the contention raised by the tenant that he had become owner of the property in possession. Civil Revision No.1872 of 1990 - 2 - 3. The Rent Controller found that there had been a rent deed executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord and having found the document to be established by evidence there no difficulty in rejecting the contention of the tenant that he could not plead adverse title in himself. As regards the ground of material impairment of the building by the conduct of the tenant for erecting partition walls, the Rent Controller found that the property had been let out to him without reference to any walls in between them and the tenant had actually trifurcated the property by erection of partition walls and using them as three shops. This, the Rent Controller observed with reference to the authorities cited before him, constituted material alteration that impaired value and utility of the building and directed eviction. He also adversely commented about the conduct of the tenant in setting up title by pleading adverse possession when he had actually executed a rent deed in favour of the landlord. The decision of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal who found the construction for partition of walls to have been established by the landlord and that they were done by the tenant without his concurrence. 4. The learned counsel refers to several decisions to the effect that every alteration will not amount to material impairment. He refers to a decision in Waryam Singh Versus Baldev Singh-2002(2) RCR (Rent) 594, to the effect that the act of a tenant covering verandah by construction two side walls and putting a rolling shutter in front could not amount to reducing the value and utility of the building; rather it increases its value and utility. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held Civil Revision No.1872 of 1990 - 3 - in Om Prakash Versus Amar Singh and another-AIR1987 Supreme Court 617, while dealing with U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, that the material alteration will have to be tested by reference to the fact that the construction was either permanent or temporary. This Court has also held in Amar Nath Versus Guru Ramdass Textile Mills-2002(1) RCR (Rent) 595, that the alteration in order to be actionable ought to be material and not merely minor construction that could be removed by spending a few thousand of rupees. In this case, the Appellate Court has reasoned, while rejecting the contention of the tenant, that the tenant had constructed partition walls and had carried out partition of the shops by such construction. He has also referred to a decision of this Court in Desh Raj Versus Gandhi Memorial Library-1982(1) All India Rent Control Journal 258, which held that construction of a wall by a tenant to divide the premises rented out to him, would amount material alteration that impaired the value and utility of the building. The Appellate Authority had adverted also to the admission of the tenant in his evidence that the site plan Ex.AW-2 was correct and that a partition wall had been shown by letters XY. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the evidence of the tenant had been misread. He has not placed the evidence before me for consideration but reference is there in the evidence to the effect that he was denying a suggestion that he had constructed a wall and that he had made two shops out of one. The denial of the suggestion, even in the face of specific admission about the correctness of the site plans by the landlord does not help the tenant in any way. Civil Revision No.1872 of 1990 - 4 - 5. The orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority have taken into account all the relevant materials and evidence and have passed the orders of eviction. There is no reason to take a different view, than how the matter has been dealt with by the authorities below. The Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.05.2009 sanjeev