Back
2012 Supreme(All) 3080
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Ajai Kumar Garg & Others -Appellant
Versus
Vith A.D.J., Bareilly & Others -Respondent
Writ - A No. -10570 of 2000
Decided On : 30-11-2012
C.S.C., Ajit Kr. Singh, Pankaj Naqvi, Advocate, for the respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that material alteration and disfigurement of a building, as defined by the relevant legal provisions and supported by evidence, justifies the ejectment of a tenant.
Headnote:
Material Alteration - Residential Accommodation - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 20(2)(c), 1993(1) ARC 181, 1983(2) ARC 135, 1970 ALJ 1154 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 20(2)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and referred to previous cases to establish that material alteration resulting in the diminishment of value or disfigurement of the building justifies ejectment of the tenant. The court emphasized the importance of evidence in proving the impact of alterations on the property and upheld the findings of the lower courts based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a residential house in Bareilly, where the landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the grounds of material alteration and disfigurement of the accommodation. The tenant contested the suit, denying any material alteration. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the building, and based on the report, decreed the suit in favor of the landlord. The findings were confirmed by the Revisional Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the alterations made by the tenant, including the demolition of the roof and construction of a new room, constituted material alteration and disfigurement of the building, justifying the ejectment of the tenant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the alterations made by the tenant constituted material alteration and disfigurement of the building, as claimed by the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Section 20(2)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and previous case law to establish the criteria for material alteration and disfigurement, emphasizing the need for evidence to support the impact of alterations on the property.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the findings of the lower courts and emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution.
1. Heard Sri Udyan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1991 passed by Small Cause Court, Bareilly in SCC Suit No.89 of 1986 decreeing the suit and directing for ejectment of petitioner- tenants from accommodation in question and revisional judgment and order dated 29.11.1999 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Bareilly dismissing petitioners' SCC Revision No.45 of 1991.
3. The dispute relates to a residential house i.e. No.406-A/1, Kunwarpur (Shivpuri) Bareilly. Sri Manohar Lal Garg (since deceased and now substituted by his legal heirs) was the tenant in the house in dispute and Sri Harish Chandra Saxena (since deceased and now substituted by his legal heirs) was owner and landlord thereof. A suit for ejectment of tenant was filed by landlord on the ground of material alteration and disfigurement etc. of residential accommodation in question. The suit was contested by the tenant denying any material alteration etc. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect disputed building who submitted report on 11.10.1989 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition).
4. Though aforesaid Advocate Commissioner was appointed on an application filed by tenant himself but since report submitted by Advocate Commissioner went against him, the tenant himself filed objection thereto but the Trial Court rejected objection and approved Commissioner's report and made part of record. The Trial Court has considered the question whether there was any material alteration etc. in respect to property in dispute and has recorded findings against petitioners. Accordingly, it has decreed the suit and said findings have been confirmed by Revisional Court.
5. It has come on record that there were two rooms, roof whereof was demolished and tenant constructed a new room merging both the rooms. The factum about laying down a new lintel has been confirmed by Advocate Commissioner in his report.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if aforesaid construction made is accepted, that would not constitute to either diminish value of property in dispute or will result in its disfigurement so as to attract any ground under Section 20(2)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). He also contended that there is no pleading or evidence about diminishing value or disfigurement and therefore, impugned orders are wholly illegal.
7. However, I find no force in the submission. It has been specifically pleaded by landlord that entire roof was demolished and thereafter a new lintel has been laid which has also resulted in merging of two rooms into one. The fact that entire roof was demolished and there is an alteration in respect to number of roof so as to create a single room after making a permanent construction is itself sufficient to show that building in dispute has been disfigured and has diminished value unless it is shown otherwise by the tenant.
8. In Ashok Kumar and others Vs. Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others, 1993(1) ARC 181 this Court in para 11 has observed:
"11. These are the cases where the partition wall was raised. It was a construction and the question was whether such constructions amounted to diminishing its value or utility or it disfigured the building. They were not the cases where certain constructions were demolished. In a case where the constructions are demolished and there is no justificable reason to demolish any portion of the building, it is for the tenant to establish that it has not diminished or likely to diminish the value, utility of the building or disfigured it. The case where the building or any portion of it is in such a dilapidated condition that the tenant has to remove the same, the position may be different but to demolish any portion of the building for his own purposes shall reduce th
