1982 PLP 593 (CLC)

(2) Whether the respondent has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the premises in dispute? (3) Relief.

3. The parties led evidence before the learned Rent Controller on the basis of which by his order dated 14‑12‑1977, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that‑ (a) the premises in dispute had not been let to the tenant for residential purposes and therefore, he did not commit any breach of the law by setting up a pharmaceutical factory in the premises. He consequently found the first issue against the petitioner.

4. The learned Rent Controller further found that 'the respondent had made structural changes in the property in dispute and also made new constructions in it on account of which the structure of the house, its value utility were all impaired. He consequently found issue No. 2 favour of the landlady, wherefore he directed the tenant to put the landlady in possession within two months from the date of the order.

5. The tenant felt aggrieved and" filed an appeal. Mr. Aqeel Ahmad Khan, Appellate Authority, by his order dated 16‑3‑1978 disagreed with the findings of the Rent Controller on Issue No: 2 and on the basis of the evidence recorded by. the Rent Controller . found that it had been conclusively proved that the premises in dispute had been let out to the tenant for residential purposes and not for setting up any industry in it. He, therefore, opined that the tenant had disentitled himself to remain in possession of the property in dispute by., converting the property from residential use to industrial purpose.

6. Mr. Aqeel Ahmad hen upheld the findings of tire, Rent Controller in favour of the landlady on issue No.2:

7. He therefore dismissed the appeal ;and gave ten days' time to the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute and put the, landlady in possession thereof. Hence this Second Appeal.

8. It has been submitted before, us that the learned. lower Courts have misread the evidence on record, but on being asked to point out that misreading none has been brought to my notice. I have gone through the evidence myself and I find that there is ample evidence on the record to show that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on both the issues is correct.

9. It was next argued before me that the structural changes were not sins could impair the value of the property or be made the basis of order of ejectment.

10. There could be no doubt that this finding is pre‑eminently a finding of fact and this Court never interferes howsoever profoundly it may differ from the conclusions arrived at on facts by the lower Courts. Be that as it may, I have, as already stated, gone through the evidence myself and find that the tenant has closed the veranda of the house as well as the porch permanently. He converted the porch into a room. He permanent closed the ventilators in the house and he has constructed several Pakka store rooms in the courtyard of the house. If these are not structural changes, I fail to visualize what could be termed as changes in the structure. These haphazard structural changes do certainly belittle the value of the house for whosoever herd of ramshackle Pakka store rooms in the courtyard of a house completely out of tune with its architecture and whosoever would accept a house on rent in which tire veranda has been permanently closed, some ventilators have been done away with and the porch has been converted into a room.

11. Even on merits; therefore, have, no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of the two learned lower Courts on the question of impairment of the value of the house consequent upon structural changes made by the tenant without any authority.

12. I have, therefore, no reason to differ with findings of the learned Appellate Authority, and agreeing with it. I dismiss this appeal with, costs throughout the tenant shall lurid over possession of the property in dispute to the landlady within a period of 15 days without fail.