Material alterations affecting rented property must permanently diminish value from the landlord's perspective to qualify for eviction under relevant law.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Mr. I.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner and Mr. R.S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for landlord-respondents.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking superintending/supervisory jurisdiction of this Court questioning the judgment and decree passed by Judge, Small Cause dated 18.12.2018 in S.C.C. Case No. 11 of 1999 whereby the suit for arrears of rent and eviction, both on the ground of default in payment of rent at the end of tenant petitioner as well as for material alteration of the building within the meaning of Section 20 (2) (c) of Act No. 13 of 1972, has been decreed. The said decree came to challenged unsuccessfully in Small Cause revision by the tenant petitioner as the same has also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2024. The said judgment is also challenged before this Court in this petition.

3. Mr. I. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has basically argued on the point of material alteration of the building for which the suit has been decreed. Although he has also tried to assail the order on the point that findings to the effect that petitioner was in arrears of rent was not justified for continued deposit made under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972.

4. In support of his submission as to the first point qua material alteration of the building that according to the trial court diminished the value of the property and thus, entitled the petitioner for a decree of the suit, Mr. Singh argued that constructions were made in the year 1986 of which the landlord respondents were fully aware and it was with his consent why he did not raise any objection for a pretty long time and the suit came to be instituted only in the year 1999. It is further argued by Mr. Singh that extending the shop a little bit by taking the outside Chabutra/platform within the shop and putting iron shutter outside the same as wooden door had completely collapsed, would not amount to material alteration. He submitted that extending the shop to a little bit incorporating within it the Chabutra/platform, would not amount to such alteration as amounting to disfigurement of the shop in question so as to result in diminishing its value. Mr. Singh further submitted that it was always open for the landlord respondents to have remove the shutter and side walls to get the original structure of the shop restored and hence according to him, the findings to the contrary to decree the suit are perverse.

5. Mr. Singh in support of his above submissions has placed reliance upon three authorities of this Court; Hari Singh vs. VIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar and others; 2006 (1) ARC 408 . He has placed paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment that run as under:-

"9. In Om Prakash v. A. Singh, 1987 SC 617 : 1987 SCFBRC 105, it has been held that material alteration to be a ground for eviction is such alteration which is permanent in nature and not such alteration which may be removed easily without causing any damage to the main/original building.

10. In my opinion construing a wall in the angan which has the effect of dividing the same into two portions cannot be said to be such tructural alteration which is covered by Section 20 (2) (c) of the Act. The point is squarely covered by the Supreme Court authorities of the Om Prakash and Waryam Singh (supra)."

6. Mr. Singh has then relied upon the authority of this Court in the case of Abdul Hamid vs.