Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.
Gurbachan Singh and another. Appellants
Versus
Shivalak Rubber Industries and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 514 of 1994,
D/- 23-1-1996.
Municipal Corporation Act - Section 269 and 270 - Construction of stair-case - Manufacturing of rubber goods - THIS is landlords appeal directed against order passed by High Court at Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing appellants Civil Revision in against judgment passed by Appellate Authority Amritsar in Rent Appeal - Affirming order passed by Rent Controller Amritsar in Rent Application No - Dismissing application of appellants eviction of respondents - From premises in suit - Late father of appellants had purchased property from Rehabilitation Department - Property consisted of shops with verandah in front of shops and vacant land at main gate situated between shops - Respondent Rubber Industries through its proprietor was inducted as tenant of in shops to together with - Vacant land behind shops with effect from on monthly rent - Respondents are partners of respondent No – Held, From above mentioned facts it is clear that even if it is assumed that the tenants-respondents raised Construction of shed over part open land of demised premises with written consent of landlord as may be spelt out from rent note Ext then rest of construction additions and alterations of shops and verandah in front of said shops of permanent nature will certainly amount to acts as have or likely to have materially value or utility of building premises let out - Nature of construction is relevant consideration in determining question of material impairment in value or utility of building or demised premises - In present case removal of roof of shops partition walls and doors laying of roof merging of verandah with shops closing doors and opening new doors and windows and converting premises altogether giving totally new and different shape and complexion by such alteration would certainly be regarded as one involving material impairment of premises affecting its fitness for use for desirable practical purpose and intrinsic worth of demised premises from point view appellant-landlords within meaning of Section - Appeal allowed
Key Points: - The Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that the tenants were liable for eviction because their unauthorized alterations materially impaired the value and utility of the premises under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (!) (!) (!) . - The Court ruled that "material impairment" is a relative term judged from the landlord's perspective, meaning a considerable decrease in quality or intrinsic worth affecting the fitness of the premises for desirable practical purposes (!) (!) . - The specific acts committed by the tenants, including removing partition walls and doors, merging verandahs with shops, constructing a new roof over open land, and demolishing boundary walls, were found to give the premises a totally new shape and complexion (!) (!) . - The Court clarified that while the construction of a shed over the open land might have been permitted, the permanent nature of the other alterations to the shops and verandahs constituted a material impairment regardless of any assumed consent for the shed (!) . - The High Court and lower appellate authorities committed a patent error of law by dismissing the eviction application without correctly applying the principles regarding material impairment (!) (!) . - The Court directed the eviction of the tenants-respondents and the restoration of actual physical possession to the appellants-landlords (!) . - To balance justice with the tenants' ongoing industry operations, the Court granted a stay on eviction until June 30, 1996, upon furnishing an undertaking (!) . - The Court found that Jamuna Prasad's occupation of a constructed kothri did not amount to subletting as he was employed as a watchman (Chowkidar) (!) (!) .
Judgement
FAIZAN UDDIN, J. :- This is landlords appeal directed against the order dated August 7, 1993 passed by the High Court at Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the appellants Civil Revision No. 618 / 1993 in limine against the judgment dated November 17, 1992 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar in Rent Appeal No. 21 dated December 12, 1988 affirming the order dated November 4, 1988 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar in Rent Application No. 106/81 dismissing the application of the appellants seeking eviction of the respondents 1, 1-A to I-F from the premises in suit.
2. Karam Singh, late father of the appellants, had purchased the property at G. T. Road, Chhehartta from the Rehabilitation Department. The property consisted of 12 shops with a verandah in front of shops and vacant land at the main gate situated between the shops Nos. 6-S and 7-S.
3. The respondent No. 1, Shivalak Rubber Industries through its proprietor, Dev Raj was inducted as a tenant of Karam Singh in shops Nos. 4-S to 6-S together with 10 ft. vacant land behind the shops with effect from May 1, 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 28/-. The respondents Nos. 1-A to 1-F are the partners of respondent No. 1-firm. Later by a rent note dated October 25, 1965 the respondent No. 1-C Dev Raj obtained shops Nos. 2-S and 3-S from late Karam Singh together with 10 ft. open land behind the said shops and 7 ft. wide strip of vacant land with the corresponding length to shops Nos. 2-S to 6-S behind / adjoining 10 ft. wide strip of land on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. Thus shops Nos. 2-S to 6-S with the aforementioned vacant land were let out to the respondents Nos. 1 and 1-A to 1-F. The owner / landlord Karam Singh expired on July 13, 1972 leaving behind him the present appellants as his sons and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as his daughter. Karam Singh has executed a Deed of Will dated June 28, 1972 in favour of the appellants in respect of the suit premises by virtue of which the appellants became the owner / landlords of the respondents Nos. 1, 1-A to 1-F. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are impleaded as pro forma respondents.
4. The appellants initiated eviction proceedings against the respondents Nos. 1, 1-A to 1-F under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the grounds of subletting and alterations in the demised premises impairing materially the value and utility of the premises let out to them. The appellants alleged that the tenant-respondents have acted in a manner which has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises for having made various structural additions and alterations in the demised premises without the written consent of the landlords and in violation of the terms of tenancy. If was alleged that the tenant-respondents converted the shops in the shops, store, kothries for residential purpose and office by removing the intervening walls of the shops, removing the doors of the 5 shops, converting verandah in front of the shops into sheds and closed the said verandah from the front and opened the shops on G. T. Road by brick work, it was further pleaded that the tenant-respondents converted shops Nos. 5-S and 6-S with verandah in front of the said shops by masonry work of manufacturing of rubber goods by making big appurtures in the walls between the 2 shops. It is alleged the door of shop No. 2 is alleged to have been removed and a small window with iron grills has been affixed in the front. It is alleged that the verandah is being used as office by closing the door of shop No. 2 with masonry work and main part of shop No. 2 has been converted into a kothri with its entrance opening in the public street towards west which is being used as residence by one Jamuna Prasad, Respondent No. 5 to whom it has been sub-let. The full size door of shop No. 3 is alleged to have been removed and a door measuring 3 x 7 ft. has been installed in front of the verandah. Shop No. 4 has been alleged to be merged with the verandah
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
