Unauthorized alterations lead to eviction under rent law. Appellants regain possession.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondents' unauthorized structural alterations significantly impaired the value and utility of the premises, warranting eviction under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The respondents were ordered to vacate the premises by June 30, 1996, with costs awarded to the appellants. The High Court's dismissal of the revision was deemed erroneous, and the appellants were granted actual physical possession of the property.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Relationship of landlord and tenant.
2. Alleged unauthorized additions and alterations.
3. Subletting of the premises.
4. Arrears of rent.
5. Maintainability of a single eviction application for separate tenancies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The appellants, sons of the deceased Karam Singh, claimed ownership of the disputed property based on a Deed of Will dated June 28, 1972. The respondents contested this, arguing that the appellants were not the legal heirs and thus had no locus standi to file the eviction application. The Rent Controller and appellate authority found that the appellants were indeed the legal landlords, as the respondents had been paying rent to them, establishing a landlord-tenant relationship.

2. Alleged Unauthorized Additions and Alterations:
The appellants alleged that the respondents made various structural changes without consent, impairing the value and utility of the premises. These changes included converting shops into sheds and kothries, removing walls and doors, enclosing the verandah, and constructing a lintel roof and a staircase. The Rent Controller and appellate authority found that these alterations were made but did not materially impair the value or utility of the premises. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that these changes significantly altered the premises' nature and character, thus materially impairing their value and utility under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

3. Subletting of the Premises:
The appellants claimed that the respondents sub-let part of the premises to Jamuna Prasad, which the respondents denied, stating that Jamuna Prasad was merely a chowkidar (watchman). The Rent Controller accepted the respondents' explanation, finding no subletting. This finding was upheld by the appellate authority and the High Court.

4. Arrears of Rent:
The appellants alleged that the respondents were in arrears of rent from October 1981. However, this issue was not the primary focus of the judgment, and the Rent Controller did not make a specific finding on this point.

5. Maintainability of a Single Eviction Application for Separate Tenancies:
The respondents argued that there were two separate tenancies with different terms, making a single eviction application invalid. The Rent Controller found that the tenancies had been consolidated, thus justifying a single eviction application. This finding was upheld by the appellate authority and the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the respondents' structural alterations materially impaired the value and utility of the premises, thus falling within the grounds for eviction under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were ordered to vacate the premises by June 30, 1996, with costs awarded to the appellants. The High Court's dismissal of the revision in limine was deemed erroneous, and the appellants were granted actual physical possession of the demised premises.

---