Vipin Kumar vs Roshan Lal Anand And Ors on 24 March, 1993
4. Mrs. Alka Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has once again made a serious challenge to the findings of the courts below on issue Nos. 1 and 2. She has urged that in view of the judgment of this Court in Narinder Nath (since deceased) through his LRs. v. Lt. Col. Jaswant Singh, (1993-2) 104 P.L.R. 401 the act of enclosing a verandah and affixing a door on the outer wall amounted to a material impairment of the building which brought the tenant within the mischief of Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. She has also urged that reliance for this proposition had been placed by this Court on a Supreme Court judgment in Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Arora and Ors., (1993-2) 104 P.L.R. 349 (S.C.). She has also focussed my attention in the aforecited case that impairment of the value of a building had to be seen from the point of view of the landlord and not that of the tenant and the material impairment envisaged under a Rent Act, is "an inferential fact to be deduced from proved facts." Examining the facts of this case in the light of the aforesaid observations, it would be clear that alteration has been made as alleged by the landlord. In the rent note Ex. A4, it is specifically mentioned that three rooms and a verandah were being let out for being used as a shop. However, in the report on the Expert dated May 20, 1977 (Ex. RW10/A) produced by the tenant, it has been clearly stated that the demised premises now consisted of four rooms and there was no reference whatsoever to the verandah which earlier existed. The Expert who was examined as RW10 had also opined that the premises in dispute were almost 60 years old but to a pointed question put to him as to whether the 4th room on the Southern side had been covered into a room from a verandah, he replied in the negative and went on to say that 6/7 years back, it might have been a verandah. It is, therefore, apparent that as per the witness of the tenant, the premises originally consisted of three rooms and a verandah and that verandah ceased to exist sometime before the report dated May 20, 1977.1, therefore, find that in the light of the facts of the case read in conjuction with the judgments referred to above, there has been an impairment and material alteration in the nature of the demised premises.