denied the removal of such a wall, Mr.Rakesh Mangla, Manager of the tenant appeared as DW1 and admitted in his statement that statements were made by him before the police. In Ex.A3, Rakesh Mangla clearly admitted that the existing wall was removed by the petitioner and wooden partition has been made in its place. Similarly, constructions of 10 brick pillars by tenant have been duly established from the cross-examination of RW3, who admitted their existence. In the Map, relied upon by both the parties, these pillars have not been shown. Thus, it clearly proves that constructions of these pillars was made after inception of tenancy. There is no evidence on record that these pillars were constructed with the consent of the landlord. It may also be noticed that in the present case, tenanted premises were in two parts and under two different tenants. Thus, the removal of intervening wall by itself would materially impair the value and utility of the tenanted premises. Where intention of landlord is to separate the premises in two different parts and let it out to different tenants, such act of tenants to make it one single unit, would certainly effect its value and utility, similarly, construction of 10 bricks pillars, which are of permanent nature clearly proves the case of landlord. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, which is supported by the evidence on record, it is clearly proved that petitioners have made alterations in tenanted premises which have materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises.
