w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ravinder Singh v/s Mukhtiar Singh

    Civil Revision No.2401 of 2011 (O&M)

    Decided On, 31 October 2011

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

    For the Petitioner: A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----



Judgment Text

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

This is tenant's revision petition challenging order dated 22.12.2006 of Rent Controller, Dasuya ordering his eviction from the demised premises and judgment dated 15.1.2011 of the Appellate Authroity

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered by the authorities below, on the ground that the petitioner has effected material alterations and thus, has impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute, by removing the intervening wall in between the demised shop and the shop under the tenancy of Balwinder Singh (brother of the petitioner).3. The authorities below on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding holding that the petitioner has removed the said wall which was a load-bearing wall and removal of the same has impaired the value and utility of both the shops which belong to Mukhtiar Singh, respondent.4. Challenging the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings of the authorities below are result of misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence on record and there is no evidence on record that the petitioner has removed the said wall. It is the further case of the petitioner that the landlord has failed to prove that there was any damage or alternation to the demised shop and in absence of any such evidence, the eviction of the petitioner cannot be ordered on the said ground.5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.6. The question whether the petitioner has removed the intervening wall in between the demised shop and the shop under the tenancy of his brother is a question of fact. The petitioner has placed on record rent agreements executed by the landlord with him and his brother Balwinder Singh.7. From the description of properties given in the aforesaid agreements, it is clearly made out that these were two separate shops having a wall in between both the shops. Admittedly, the wall between both the shops is not existing now.8. In view of the aforesaid fact alone which could not be disputed, the findings of both the authorities below cannot be faulted with.9. Dismissed.
OR
Also