Unauthorized permanent construction, in violation of lease terms, materially impairs the value and utility of the rented land, justifying eviction.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is tenants revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

2. Tejinder Singh, landlord, rented out the premises which are the rented land measuring 9 x 15 vide rent note dated November 22, 1970 Exhibit A.W.1/8, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The ejectment application was filed on November 16, 1972, on the ground that the tenant was guilty of such acts as were likely to impair materially the value and utility of the demised land inasmuch as the tenant had raised construction of a permanent nature thereon for which the landlord had to file the suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain him from making further construction, wherein a temporary injunction was granted in September, 1972. The tenant had been a source of nuisance to him. In the written statement, the tenant denied the said allegations. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it was quite clear that the tenant had raised permanent construction on the suit land without the written consent of the landlord which was later on demolished in pursuance of the decree of the Civil Court against the tenant. It was further concluded that by raising the permanent construction without the written consent of the landlord, the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the rented land. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against him. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against the tenant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord no where pleaded as to how the construction raised by the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and that being so, no eviction order could be passed against him. It was also contended that even if the tenant violated the terms of the lease deed by raising construction over the vacant land that, by itself, was no ground for his eviction therefrom. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Om Parkash v. Amar Singh, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 617 : 1987(1) RCR 326 and Sadhu Ram v. Niranjan Dass, 1983(2) R.C.R. 446.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that by raising the permanent construction over the vacant land which was later on got demolished in execution of the civil Court decree, it was quite evident that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Siri Ram v. Smt. Shila Rani, 1982 P.L.R. 591 : 1982(1) RCR 616.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

6. It is the common case of the parties that according to the terms of the rent note, Exhibit RW-1/0, the tenant was not authorised to raise any permanent construction on the vacant land for which the landlord had to file a civil suit for the grant of the permanent injunction against him. It was in execution of the civil Court decree that the said construction was removed by the tenant. In these circumstances, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant that it had not materially impaired the value and utility of the rented land. Om Parkashs and Sadhu Rams case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the tenant have no applicability to the facts of the present case. In Om Prakashs case (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that the material alteration means substantial change in character, form the structure of building without destroying its identity. The very fact that the tenant raised permanent construction over the vacant land without the permission of the landlord as well as against the terms of the rent note, is itself sufficient to prove that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the rent land. It was held by this Court in Siri Rams case (supra), that wher