Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 247
High Court Of Delhi
SURAJ PRAKASH CHOPRA RAJ KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
BAIJ NATH DHAWAN - Respondent
S.A.O. 17 of 2002
Decided On : 03/11/2003
Mahesh Kalra, SANJIV MAHAJAN, V.K.Makhija
The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary alterations or additions that can be easily repaired without causing damage to the structure do not constitute substantial damage to the tenancy premises under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent control Act - Eviction under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) - [Waryam Singh v. Baldev Singh, 2002 (2) Rent Law Reporter 694; Dewan Chand v. Bdbu Ram, (1980) 2 RCJ 615; Gurbachan Singh v. Shivdak Rubber Industries, (1996) 2 SCC 626; Kartar Singh v. Kesr Singh and Another, (1980) 2 RCJ 1; Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories, 1981 CLJ (Civil) 414; Om Prakash v. Amar Singh, (1987) 1 SCC 458; Brijendra Nath Bhargava v. Harsh Wardhan, (1988) 1 SCC 454; Om Pal v. Anand Swarup, (1988) 4 SCC 545; Savitri Devi v. U. S. Bajpai and Another, AIR 1956 Nagpur 60; Moti Ram Banarsi Dass v. Shiv Dayal Trust, 1984 (2) RCR 421; G. Natrajan v. P. Thandavaryan, IX (1969) All India Rent Control Journal 733; Madan Lal Saggi and Another v. British motor Car Company, 1984 (2) RCR 572; Mrs. K. Atma Ram and Another v. Kanwar Mohinder Singh, 1976 RCJ 336; Gurmit Singh v. Smt. Kirpal kaur, 1992 (2) RLR 271; Banarsi dass v. Sunder Dass and Another, 1969 (1) RCJ 32; jagdish Chand, etc. v. Mst. Bachni Devi, 1980 (2) RCJ 619; Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand and Others, (1993) 2 SCC 614] - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations related to eviction under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act, emphasizing the onus of proof on the landlord, the requirement for material impairment in the value or utility of the premises, and the need for expert evidence to establish substantial damage. The judgment highlighted that temporary alterations or additions that can be easily repaired without causing damage to the structure do not constitute substantial damage to the tenancy premises.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act, alleging substantial damage caused to the tenancy premises by the tenant's additions and alterations, particularly a tin-shed erected in the courtyard. The Controller upheld the eviction on this ground, which was appealed by the tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tin-shed, being of temporary nature and easily removable without causing damage to the main building, did not constitute substantial damage to the premises. The court emphasized the need for the landlord to prove material impairment in the value or utility of the building and the onus of proof on the landlord.
Issues: The key issue was whether the tenant's additions and alterations, particularly the tin-shed, constituted substantial damage to the tenancy premises under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that temporary alterations or additions that can be easily repaired without causing damage to the structure do not constitute substantial damage to the tenancy premises. The court emphasized the onus of proof on the landlord to establish material impairment in the value or utility of the building and the need for expert evidence to support such claims.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the Controller and the Tribunal, dismissing the eviction petition on the ground under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Section 39 of Delhi Rent control Act (for short the Act) is filed challenging an order of Additional Rent control Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) whereby tenant s appeal assailing an order of the Additional Rent Controller (for short the Controller) passed on the ground of eviction under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act was decided.
( 2 ) THE respondent Baij Nath Dhawan (hereinafter the landlord) sought eviction of his tenant Suraj Parkash Chopra Raj Kumar (hereinafter the tenant) from a portion of the premises No. G-24, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi under Clauses (b), (c) and (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act. The Controller disallowed eviction of the tenant under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 14 (1) of the Act. The said order is not under challenge. But under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) the Controller upheld the contention of the landlord that substantial damage has been caused to the tenancy premises. He accordingly directed the tenant to repair the damages caused by (a) construction of walls; changing the situation of the door of the W. C. ; blocking of the windows at points A and B as shown in site plan Ext. AW 1/1: and (b) the construction of the tinshed in the open courtyard. The Controller directed the tenant to carry out necessary repairs and restore the tenancy premises in its original shape within one month failing which the tenant will become liable to eviction under Clause (j) of Section 14 (1) of the Act.
( 3 ) THE tenant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed of by order dated 1. 4. 2002. As regards the tin-shed erected in the open courtyard the finding of the Tribunal was that it had caused substantial damage to the premises. As regards the door of W. C. towards the Verandah it was held that it was done with the consent of the landlord and no damage could have been caused to the premises by the change of the door of the W. C. The Tribunal also held that the closure of the windows at points A and B shown in the site plan Ext. AW-1/1 was on account of letting out of the premises to a tenant and it has not caused such structural changes as to cause damage to the tenancy premises. As regards the two windows opened on the rear side by me tenant the Tribunal was told that they had already been closed by plywood. The Tribunal, however, directed that they be dosed by bricks. The wall in the Verandah was held to be erected with the consent of the landlord at the time of letting of the premises and the Tribunal declined to pass any order with regard to that. In essence, the Tribunal modified the order of the Collector directing (i) removal of the shed with false ceiling and bringing the Verandah in its original shape; and (ii) closing of the two windows on the rear side with bricks, within two months.
( 4 ) THE tenant is still aggrieved and has come up in this second appeal.
( 5 ) THE argument of the Counsel for the appellant is that the question of law involved is that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the shed in question has caused substantial damage to the premises within the meaning of Clause (j) of section 14 (1) of the Act.
( 6 ) NONE of the parties has considered the order of the Tribunal by which the two rear windows were directed to be dosed by bricks as significant since the tenant has already closed it by fixing plywood and the brick work could also be carried out without any difficulty. The controversy centered around the tin-shed structure.
( 7 ) IN para 18 of the eviction petition the landlord so far as it related to the tin- shed, averred "respondent No. 1 converted the open courtyard in front of the unloading platform into a tin-shed against the Munidpal Bye-laws and without the consent and permission of the petitioner or the Munidpal Corporation of Delhi. " the precise nature of the erection work of the tin-shed was not spedfied. In the written statement the tenant denied that the tin-shed was erected by him and contended th
