Back
1993 Supreme(P&H) 709
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.S.Bedi, J.
Kasturi Lal
Versus
Muni Lal
Civil Revision No. 1716 of 1980,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 7, 1993
Unauthorized construction and change of user of the demised premises by the tenant without the landlord's consent constitute grounds for eviction under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Headnote:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 13(2)(III) - MATERIAL IMPAIRMENT OF BUILDING - CHANGE OF USER - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent, expiry of tenancy, unauthorized construction, and change of user. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by enclosing the verandah and constructing a room, and that the tenant had changed the user of the premises from a shop to a soap manufacturing unit without the landlord's consent.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the disputed premises? 2. Whether the tenant had changed the user of the disputed premises without the consent of the landlord?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on the judgments of this Court in Narinder Nath (since deceased) through his LRs. v. Lt. Col. Jaswant Singh, (1993-2) 104 P.L.R. 401 and Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Arora and Ors., (1993-2) 104 P.L.R. 349 (S.C.) to hold that the tenant's actions amounted to a material impairment of the building and a change of user.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the landlord's petition and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The tenant was granted three months' time to vacate the premises on the condition that he paid the arrears of rent and rent for the next three months and filed an undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of the said period.
H.S.Bedi, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the landlord against the concurrent findings recorded against him by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, thereby dismissing the eviction petition.
2. The facts of the case are as under :-
Shop No. 173 situated in Jagraon, was owned by Kasturi Lai and Darbar Chand. Muni Lai was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 41.10 Annas -8 paise on June 1, 1963. As per the rent note Ex.A-4 dated May 21, 1963, executed by the tenant, it appears that the premises in dispute consisted of three rooms and one verandah on the ground floor. The landlord, thereafter, sought eviction of the tenant on four grounds (a) that the tenant had not paid the rent from April 1, 1972 (b) that the period of tenancy had expired and the tenancy, accordingly, stood terminated (c) that the respondent had, without the consent of the landlord, constructed one Bhatti in the premises in question and started the business of manufacturing of Soap, thereby, changing the user of the premises and also materially impairing the value and utility thereof and (d) that the respondent had removed the door of a room and converted the verandah into a room thereby preventing the ingress and outgress of the landlord through the stairs for going to the upper storey.
3. The tenant resisted the application and controverted the allegations made. The parties faced the trial on the following issues :-
1. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of disputed premises ? OPA
2. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the disputed premises without consent of applicants asalleged ? OPA
3. Whether the respondent has breached the terms of tenancy, as alleged in para No. 3(i) of the petition ? OPA
4. Whether the respondent has been guilty of nuisance as alleged. If so, its effect ? OPA.
5. Whether a valid notice was served by the applicants to the respondents ? OPA
6. Whether applicant is a mere statutory tenant ? If so, its effect ?OPA.
7. Relief.
The Rent Controller returned the findings on all the issues in favour of the tenant and, accordingly, dismissed the eviction application. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and made a serious challenge to the findings of the Rent Controller only on issue Nos. 1 and 2. The Appellate Authority also found that the conversion of the verandah into a room and the blocking of the stair case could not be said to have materially altered or impaired the utility of the disputed premises but on the question of change of user held that as no specific purpose had been indicated in the rent note Exhibit A- 4, for which the shop could be used, there was no change of user and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The landlord has come up against the two orders mentioned above.
4 Mrs. Alka Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has once again made a serious challenge to the findings of the courts below on issue Nos. 1 and 2. She has urged that in view of the judgment of this Court in Narinder Nath (since deceased) through his LRs. v. Lt. Col. Jaswant Singh, (1993-2) 104 P.L.R. 401 the act of enclosing a verandah and affixing a door on the outer wall amounted to a material impairment of the building which brought the tenant within the mischief of Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. She has also urged that reliance for this proposition had been placed by this Court on a Supreme Court judgment in Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Arora and Ors., (1993-2) 104 P.L.R. 349 (S.C.). She has also focussed my attention in the aforecited case that impairment of the value of a building had to be seen from the point of view of the landlord and not that of the tenant and the material impairment envisaged under a Rent Act, is "an inferential fact to be deduced from proved facts." Examining the facts of this case in the light of the aforesaid observations, it would be clear that alteratio
