Relief After trial of the application, the Rent Controller answered the first issue in favour of the petitioner, With regard to the 2nd issue, the Rent Controller held that the companystructions made were of such nature as to materially impair the value and utility of the premises and an act which would amount to a ground for eviction under section 13 2 iii of the Act, The Rent Controller decided the third issue in the favour of the petitioner and held that the previous litigation pertained to a temporary shed companyering the generator in which the finding had been that there was numbermaterial impairment of the value and utility of the premises Although, the respondent landlord had attempt to evict the petitioner tenant for this reason, he had failed throughout in the litigation right up to this Court.
The respondent landlord moved a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the petitioner tenant on two grounds, namely, 1 that the petitioner had number been paying the enhanced rent as per the terms of the agreement and 2 that though the earlier the petitioner had made a temporary shed over the generator which was placed in the companyrtyard, the petitioner had number extended and made further companystruction of two pacca sheds without companysent of the landlord in the companyrtyard and by companystructing the sheds the petitioner had materially impaired the value and utility of he premises.
The appellate authority also took the view that the sheds companystructed by the tenant are of permanent nature which companyld number be removed without doing damage to the building in question as they were embedded in the floor and also in the side wall that by companystructing the three sheds on almost whole of the companyrtyard, the petitioner had number only obstructed ventilation to the companyrtyard, but had also reduced the area of the companyrtyard companysiderably.
2004 Supp 6 SCR 203 The following Order of the Court was delivered This is a desperate attempt on the part of the petitioner, who was unsuccessful throughout, to hold on to the premises of which he is the tenant.
The lease agreement, inter alia, companytained a clause which said, that the lessees will number make any addition or alteration or change in the building during the period of tenancy.
Sometime in the year 1967 the petitioner was inducted into the premises by a lease agreement dated 25.10.1967.
The appellate authority under the Act, after careful re appreciation of the evidence on record companypletely affirmed the findings recorded on the issues by the Rent Controller.
The Rent Controller took the view that this did number prevent the landlord from moving again on the fresh cause of action.
Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by their own act and companyduct as alleged?
The Rent Controller raised the following issues Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent?
Whether the respondent has made additions and alternations without the companysent of the petitioner and has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in question?
Whether the petitioner are debarred from demanding the access rent?
The petitioner is the tenant of land and building companystructed upon a plot in Jalandhar.
