J.S. Narang, J.@mdashThe landlord filed a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for seeking ejectment of the
respondent-petitioner from the shop defined as demised premises in the application filed before the Rent Controller. The ejectment has been
sought on the ground of nonpayment of rent w.e.f. 1.7.1971 at the rate of Rs. 75/- p.m. and the other ground is that the respondent has made
material alteration in the demised shop by raising cabin in front of shop resultantly impairing the light and the air to be enjoyed in respect of the
demised premises.
2. The petition was contested. However, rent has been tendered and the said ground did not remain available to the landlord. The parties led
evidence so far as the second ground is concerned. It has been noticed by the Rent Controller that in respect of the construction of the kacha
Cabin in front of the shop, a notice had been received by him from the Municipal Committee, copy of which has been exhibited as Ex.A-6 and that
in pursuant thereto, the said cabin has been demolished by the Municipal Committee during the pendency of the application before the Rent
Controller. This fact has been noticed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller dismissed the application accordingly.
3. The landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority maintaining the claim of material impairment of the demised premises. The Appellate
Authority has held that by raising the cabin in front of the shop the entry of the light and air in the shop has been affected and resultantly the material
impairment to the value and utility of the property has been caused. Thus, the respondent-petitioner is liable to be ejected. The appeal has been
accepted and the respondent-petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on this ground alone.
4. The order dated 7.1.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority has been made subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has argued that in fact no alteration has been made m the shop as is evident from the fact that a notice had been issued by the
Municipal Committee for removing the cabin which was constructed in front of the demised premises and that the said cabin was demolished by
the Municipal Committee in pursuant to the notice received by him. Thus, the Appellate Authority has fallen into error by still holding that the value
and utility of the demised premises has been materially impaired on account stoppage of light and or on account of the construction of cabin in front
of the demised premises. The factum of demolition of cabin has been noticed by the Appellate Authority yet it has been held that the material
impairment has been caused, it is the settled law that the facts which emerge on account of change during the pendency of the application before
the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority can be noticed by the forums and the relief should be granted accordingly.
5. In view of the above, J find that the Appellate Authority fell into error in upsetting the order dated 20.8.1981 passed by the Rent Controller vide
which the application tiled by the landlord has been dismissed. Admittedly, no alteration has been made in the shop and that a cabin had been
constructed upon the land belonging to the Municipal Committee, which has been demolished in pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner.
6. Revision petition is allowed and the order dated 7.1.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is
upheld. Consequently, the application of the landlord is dismissed.