Prem Chand Jain, J.:— Messrs Parkash Chand Harnam Singh through Parkash Chand partner, have filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 29, 1976, by which order of ejectment was passed against the petitioners.
2. The revision petition came up for motion hearing before Gurnam Singh, J, who admitted the same for hearing by a D.B and that is how we are seized of the matter.
3. The only ground on which ejectment has been ordered by the Appellate Authority is that by unauthorised alteration in the shop in dispute without the consent of the landlord the value and utility of the shop has been materially impaired.
4. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the only alteration that has been made in the shop in dispute is that the door of the shop has been removed from its original place and fixed in the verandah, and that no other alteration has been made. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the decision of this Court, on which reliance was placed by the Appellate Authority, in Chatar Sain v. Bishan Lai (1976) 78 PLR 174, is distinguishable, as the facts of this case were entirely different and the changes which were made in that case by the tenant in the building were substantial in nature.
5. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, Page: 197we are of the view that there is considerable force m the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the instant case, the Rent Controller, on the consideration of the entire evidence, hat found as a fact that the only alteration that was made by the petitioners in the shop in dispute was that they just removed the door of the shop and fixed it in the verandah. In our view, merely removing of the door from one place and filing it up in the verandah would not be such an alteration of a far-reaching nature which may amount to impairment of the value and utility of the premises. Except fixing the door in the varandah, the petitioners did not make any other change. In this view of the matter, we hold that the act of the petitioners in just fixing up the door in the verandah after removing the same from the original place, would not amount to impairment of value and utility of the premises and the petitioners on that score would not be liable to ejectment. The view we have taken finds full support from the judgments of this Court in Siri Krishan Dev v. Jhabu Ram (1969) 71 PLR 39, unreported decision in Arjan Singh v. Kishan Chand C.R 689 of 1971. Civil Revision 689 of 1971, decided on November 5, 1971, and another unreported decision in Babu Ram v. Smt. Kesra Devi C.R 482 of 1964, Civil Revision No. 482 of 1964, decided on December 11, 1964.
5. Now, we advert to the decision in Chatar Sain's case which necessitated the hearing of this petition by a Division Bench. In our view, the facts of that case are different from those of the present petition. In that case, alterations made by the tenant were material as is evident from the finding of the learned judge accruing at page 177 of the report, which reads as under:—
“Therefore, I unhesitatingly find that the Appellate Authority was right in concluding on the evidence and material present on record that the petitioner had divided the verandah which existing in front of the two shops by raising a wall in its middle, and then included half of the said verandah into the premises by removing the frame of the door which existed in the wall of the shop and then fixing the same in the wall which was erected by him on the outer side of the verandah adjoining the road,”
and it was on the basis of the aforesaid finding that the learned Judge held that the tenant by making those alterations had impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute.
7. No other point was urged
8. For the reasons recorded above, we allow this petition, set aside the order of the learned Appellate Authority and restore that of the learned Rent Controller, and dismiss the ejectment application filed by the landlord respondent but make no order as to costs.
H.L.S
Revision petition allowed.