PG NO 393 A parchhati put up by the tenant appellant in a shop taken on lease by him for running a Dry Cleaning laundry has been companystrued by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as an act causing material impairment to the building and the High Court has affirmed their findings and dismissed the revision preferred by the appellant.
The companyrectness of the order of the High Court in Revision is challenged in this appeal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.80 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No 292 of 1976 Sultan Singh and T L Garg for the Appellant.
The appellant put up a parchhati in the shop for storing the clothes before and after dry cleaning.
The facts are number in companytroversy and may briefly be stated as under.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2471 of 1980.
Harbans Lal, S M Ashri and Ashok Mahajan for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the companyrt was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. In this appeal by special leave by a tenant against the dismissal of his Revision under Section l5 5 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act by the High Court, what falls for companysideration is the manner of companystruing the words acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building occurring in Section 13 2 iii of the Act.
For running a dry cleaning shop the appellant had taken on lease a room from the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.30.
