Judgment:
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Yash Pal (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, dated 16.3.1989. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dated 20.5.1988. Instead, a petition for eviction was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner-landlord filed eviction application against the respondent-tenant with respect to the suit property describing the same to be comprising of four rooms, two kitchens and a verandah. The sole surviving ground pressed has been that the said property in question was let to the respondent-tenant for residential purposes but he had impaired the value and utility of the property by his acts. Without the consent of the landlord, he had installed a sewerage connection of latrine in one of the kitchen. In other words, he had converted the said kitchen into a latrine and had also dug a pit in the courtyard for the disposal of night-soil.
3. The respondent-tenant contested the eviction petition and denied that one of the kitchen had been converted into bath-room/latrine. At the time of the installation of the said latrine, the son of the petitioner was present. Thus, the respondent-tenant has not impaired the value and utility of the property.
4. The learned Rent Controller after recording of evidence held that the respondent-tenant has converted one of the kitchen into latrine and in this process has impaired the value and utility of the premises in question.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal., The learned Appellate Authority recorded that there is no admission made that two kitchens had been let and not one kitchen and latrine. It was further held that only one kitchen had been let and the other portion which is described to be the second kitchen was being used as a bath-room and latrine. The value and utility of the property has not been impaired. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
6. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.
7. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Madan Lal v. Madan Lal (1985-1)87 P.L.R. 400, wherein it was held that when kitchen had been converted into bath-room, it would be impairing the value and utility of the property. However, before the petitioner can take advantage of the cited decision, it must be show and proved that, in fact, two kitchens had been let to the respondent-tenant.
8. In the first instance, it was urged that there is admission of the respondent-tenant in this regard in the pleadings and secondly in reply to the notice that had been served. On both counts, the said contention necessarily has to be repelled. In the petition for eviction, the petitioner had asserted that the respondent is a tenant in the property in question shown in the site plan. In the reply filed, the respondent-tenant has denied that the said site plan is correct. In the latter part of the written statement, the respondent-tenant even specifically asserted that there is no impairment of the property or, in other words, it was not admitted that there were two kitchens that had been let. As far as reply to the notice Exhibit AW9/5 is concerned, the same is stated to have been signed by Shri V.K. Sareen, Advocate. Shri V.K. Sareen, Advocate, had denied his signatures on the said letter and this fact had been believed by the learned Appellate Authority. There is no ground to take a different view and, in these circumstances, it cannot be termed that there is any admission on the part of the respondent-tenant that there were two kitchens and were let from where is could be inferred that one of them had been converted into latrine thereby impairing the value and utility of the property.
9. Confronted with that position, it had been urged that Local Commissioner had been appointed to visit the site. He found that there was some smoke that could be noticed on the walls which was being used as a latrine. Indeed, that by itself could by a factor but not a conclusive proof that earlier it was a kitchen. When the respondent-tenant had been living, it was difficult to digest that he would not have a latrine and would have two kitchens let to him. In normal circumstances, it would be a kitchen and a latrine. If he has converted the same into latrine by affixing flush system, it will not tantamount to impairing the value and utility of the property. The learned Appellate Authority had rightly recorded that it would make the building more hygienic and cannot be termed that this act can be described to be an act of nuisance. Consequently, there is no ground to interfere because there is no illegality or impropriety therein.
10. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.