Mere repairs and alterations by a tenant, such as plastering walls and relaying floors, do not automatically constitute material impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises, justifying eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The landlord must prove that such repairs and alterations substantially diminished the quality, value, and strength of the premises.

G.C.Garg, J.

1. The respondent-landlord filed a petition against the petitioner-tenant under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction from a shop situated within the municipal limits of Safidon, inter alia, alleging that the tenant was in arrears of rent and the house tax, the demised premises had become unfit for human habitation and that the tenant had carried out extensive repairs without his permission and consent, inasmuch as he removed a partition wall in the shop, plastered the four walls and relayed the floor and thereby materially impaired the value and utility of the building. The tenant refuted the allegations levelled in the petition and asserted that the tenanted premises are absolutely fit for human habitation and no repair or changes in the structure of the building has been effected by him, therefore, there is no question of impairing the value and utility of the building.

2. The trial, the landlord pressed only two grounds i.e. the building had become unfit for human habitation and the respondent had effected extensive repairs in the demised premises thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition by order dated May 8, 1989, by observing that there was no conclusive evidence on the file to arrive at the conclusion that the building in question had become unfit for human habitation and that the repairs even if carried out by the tenant i.e. relaying of floor and plastering the walls did not amount to materially impairing the value and utility of the building in question. Appeal preferred by the landlord was, however, accepted by the appellate authority by order dated July 22, 1990. This is how, the tenant has filed the present revision against the order of the appellate authority.

3. At the very outset, it may be noticed that while accepting the appeal, the appellate authority on the basis of the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner and the report of the local commissioner concluded that the tenant had made extensive repairs and even replaced the floor of the front portion. Thereafter, a reference was made to the report of the local commissioner wherein it was stated that the front portion of the shop had been white washed 5/7 days before the visit of the Local Commissioner and the scratching of the cement on the walls of the front portion showed that the same had been plastered only 10/15 days back. The appellate authority in para 11 of the judgment under revision, while affirming the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 3 reversed the finding on issue No. 1, by observing as under:-

"I, on the basis of statements of witnesses examined by the respondent and the report of the local commissioner conclude that the tenant has made material alteration in the front portion of the shop by replacing its floor, by plastering the walls and doing such like other things. Even the roof of front portion appeared to be quite different from the roof of the hind portion. It at all the shop had not become unfit and unsafe, for human habitation, why the tenant took the law in his own hands and he got the front portion repaired and materially altered. If it needed some minor repair, he could request the landlord to do so and in case landlord refused to do so he could apply to the Rent Controller under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for such repair. There is no justification for the tenant doing material repairs or alterations himself without knowledge of the landlord or without his consent or even without seeking permission of the Rent Controller. The only inference that can be drawn is against the tenant that the shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and in order to avoid his eviction on this ground, the tenant made not only extensive repairs but also material alteration."

4. In the above backdrop, the appellate author