CR No.7764 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7764 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:20.04.2011. United India Insurance Company Limited ...Petitioner Versus Radha Raman Kapoor ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar dated 25.09.2010 by which order of the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar dated 26.08.2008 has been reversed and the tenant has been directed to vacate the demised premises within two months from the date of the order. In brief, the landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises bearing No.382/XIII-4, MCA, near Petrol Pump, M.M.Malviya Road, Amritsar which is in occupation of the tenant @ `100/- per month, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, ceased to occupy continuously for a period of 4 months without reasonable cause w.e.f. June, 1990 by keeping the demised premises closed and locked and by his act and conduct the value and utility of the demised premises has materially impaired. In reply, the relationship of landlord and tenant and rate of rent were admitted. The arrears of rent were tendered and other averments made in the eviction petition were denied. The landlord filed the rejoinder and CR No.7764 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ***** thereafter, the issues were framed. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition holding that the landlord has failed to prove that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises and has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, but in appeal, the learned Appellate Authority had found that the demised premises, which was let out for office, has been converted into a store for the purpose of storing salvage of the vehicles and other record of the Insurance Company/tenant. It was also found that the tenant has even disconnected the electricity connection and since the demised premises is locked most of the time, it is not getting enough air and sunlight which has caused impairment to its value and utility. Keeping in view the totality of facts, the eviction order was passed. Learned counsel for the tenant has vehemently argued that landlord has failed to prove that the tenant is keeping the demised premises closed continuously for a period of 4 months without any sufficient cause as it has come on record that the demised premises is being opened intermittently whenever need arises for the purpose of storing salvage/record and it is being used generally for short period and hence there was no requirement to keep the electricity connection. It is, thus, argued that the learned Appellate Authority has committed a patent error of law in passing the order of eviction. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the demised premises was let out as an office and not as a store which is even admitted by RW2 Satish Kumar, who had stated that it was let out to Indian Trade and General Insurance Company which lateron merged with the United India Insurance Company. Initially, it was used for office, but now it is being used as a godown for the purpose of keeping salvage of vehicles and other record of the Insurance Company. He also admitted that the electricity meter installed in the demised premises is lying disconnected since 1988 as they do not require electricity. Similarly, RW1 Jassa Singh, Development Officer of the Insurance Company/tenant, has also stated that there is neither electricity nor fans and tubes installed in the demised premises. There is no electricity meter in the demised premises. He also stated that the electric connection, which was installed in the demised premises, is lying disconnected since the year 1988 and the Insurance Company is not doing any sort of work in the CR No.7764 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - ***** demised premises since June, 1990. Admittedly, the demised premises is situated in the market which is evident from the photographs which are placed on record with the report of the Local Commissioner but it is lying closed for most of the time as even the storekeeper does not sit there. Thus, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that there is no flow of natural sunlight and air in the demised premises which has impaired its value and utility. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vipin Kumar V. Roshan Lal Anand and others, 1993(2) P.L.R. 349 and a decision of this Court in the case of Bawa Singh V. Smt. Pushpa Wati and others, 1980(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 492. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance. The facts are not much in dispute as it has been admitted by the tenant's witnesses that the demised premises was let out as an office and is now being used as a store for keeping salvage of the vehicles and vehicles also besides the other record of the Insurance Company. The electricity connection was disconnected as it is not being used by the tenant and has not been restored on the ground that it is hardly required as the demised premises is being opened for a very short period otherwise it remains closed without there being any flow of natural sunlight and air. In the case of Vipin Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if the flow of light and air is stopped, then it causes loss to the value and utility of the building which falls within the definition of impairment. In the case of Bawa Singh (supra), this Court has held that impairment of value and utility is to be seen from the point of view of the landlord and not of the tenant. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority whereby order of eviction has been passed and as such, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed with costs throughout. April 20, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge