Allahabad High Court
Parvez Akhtar vs Mohd. Iliyas on 18 December, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Judgment reserved on: 16.12.2024 Delivered on: 18.12.2024 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:200125 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2111 of 2018 Petitioner :- Parvez Akhtar Respondent :- Mohd. Iliyas Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Ajendra Kumar,Rama Goel Bansal,Shahnawaz Akhtar Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. The petitioner is a tenant of late Mohd. Ilyas and so now of his heirs who have substituted Mohd. Ilyas in the present petition as respondent no.1/1 to 1/6.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Judge Small Causes Courts, whereby, he has decreed the suit and resultantly directed the petitioner for eviction on the ground mentioned under Section 20(2)(c) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The order passed by the Court in SCC Revision affirming the Decree is also under challenge.
3. The main argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no independent finding has come to be returned by the Judge Small Causes as well as Court deciding Revision, as to the structural changes or alteration in the demised property by the tenant which may have diminished its value or utility or to have disfigured it to order for his eviction under Section 20(2)(c) of Act No.13 of 1972. In support of his argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that trial Judge has simply referred to statement of the tenant-petitioner and held that since the structural alteration had been admitted by the tenant and that too being done without consent of the landlord, then there remained nothing to be decided further.
4. It has been argued that the Judge Small Causes has wrongly returned a finding that disfigurement of the demised property has come to be corroborated by the Commission's Report so as to enable the Court to pass the decree of auction. It is also argued that the Court sitting in revision has simply referred to certain statements made by the respective parties and the findings are not based upon such materials which may have led the Court to form a definite view that the structural alterations were such that diminished the value or amounted to disfiguring the structure to the prejudice of the landlord.
5. Countering the submissions so advanced above, Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even though, findings returned by the Prescribed Authority are not happily worded but trial Judge has considered the statements of the tenant-petitioner which cannot be denied by him and then the Commission's Report which also supported the stand taken by the plaintiff regarding structural changes made by the tenant-petitioner which have resulted in disfigurement of the property to the prejudice of the landlord-respondent.
6. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records, I find only point that requires consideration by this Court is, as to whether the findings returned by the courts below for decreeing the suit under Section 20(2)(c) are based on substantial material that such findings can be taken to be cogent enough to decree the suit. In order to address the above point, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings raised by the respective parties.
7. The plaintiff-landlord raised pleading in the plaint to the effect that the demised premises when were rented out to the petitioner, it consisted of one room, 3 kothries,, one drawing room, 2 dallans and a kitchen. However, the tenant-defendant demolished the roofs of two rooms and got converted into one room then further demolished the drawing room and also converted the dallans in rooms and further enhanced the kitchen area by including the portion of Sehan of the house and all theses structural changes were carried out without permission of the plaintiff. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he plainly denied pleadings as to structural changes taken in the plaint and further in the additional pleas, he denied to have made any structural changes so as to cause any damage to the property. Parties led their respective evidence.
8. In the affidavit filed by the present petitioner, he admitted that the house was made of old bricks and was in a dilapidated condition. There were 2 kothries in the North and West of the house and East to them was a drawing room. On Eastern side of the drawing room there was an exit on the North side road and towards the East of the exit, there was a Kothri and to North of the Eastern kothri there was a latrine and that along side the Eastern kothri towards the South there was a dallan facing East, and with this dallan there was a Sehan and to the West of the Sehan along side the drawing room in the south side there was a kitchen and along side the dallan there was a room as well. So in his statement, he has admitted that the entire house consisted of 3 kothries, one drawing room, one room, two dallans with Sehan and a kitchen.
9. The defendant makes a statement that in 2 kothries, there were Karies below the roofs and only plaster work was done and in the drawing room there were no Karies and no roof, whereas, in the Southern dallan 2 kothries were there in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, girders were placed to hold Karies intact and in the second dallan the Karies were in a dilapidated condition. In the room, towards the South of the house since the Karies had fallen for rust, therefore, petitioner got a ceiling roof constructed. He claimed to have asked the plaintiff to get the ceiling roof constructed but he failed to do so. Landlord neither made any construction, nor he constructed the roof thereupon. Ultimately, in the year 2000, he got iron girders and angles installed to place the stone plates upon the same and during that period also he got the stone plates above the kitchen area and all these constructions were made with the knowledge of the landlord-respondent. He denied to have damaged the roof of the 2 rooms/kothries, nor did he get the drawing room demolished. There were no doors and Karies in the drawing room. He denied to have demolished the kitchen to make a new construction and that he did not convert dallan into room.
10. Thus, according to the above pleadings of the parties while the plaintiff claimed that 2 kothries were converted into one room and then kitchen area got re-constructed taking more area of the Sehan into it and then also converted one of the dallans into room, petitioner denied the same and so it becomes necessary here to also refer the Amin Commission Report that was prepared after the Court had ordered for the same and as per the report: the structure included only one room, one verandah, one store room, one kitchen then a bathroom, then dallan, a latrine, then two structures in a dilapidated state, rooms with girders and stones plates upon them and one beam also, then also the girders below the roof of the verandah with stone plates, then store room again with Karies, then kitchen area with two Karies and stone plates, then towards the Eastern and Western wall of the kitchen there were new constructions and bathroom was also a new construction. The two open spaces area of dallan were closed.
11. Now comparing the above Amin Commission Report with those of the pleadings raised by the parties as well as the statement made by the petitioner, it gets clearly established that towards the Western side of the dallan, there was a Sehan and in the North-Southern side of the Sehan there was a kitchen and towards the South of the kithen, there was a new wall constructed. To the South of the kitchen is the Angan as per the report map submitted by the Amin. On the Southern side of the kitchen a new wall has come up which faces the courtyard and almost in size similar to the room.
12. This report by the Amin was prepared upon the statements and instructions given by the tenant-petitioner himself who was present on the spot and he never disputed the same.
13. It is thus, very much clear that the new constructions that had taken place of the kitchen has not only enlarged its area and diminished the total area of the courtyard and Sehan but has made the kitchen absolutely as big as a room. This construction of the kitchen has been admitted by the petitioner. Not only this, the two rooms with one room along side the verandah and store room is also shown in the Map which makes it clear and also apparent from bore eyes that these two rooms/kothri area have been converted into one room which opens up in the verandah that faces the courtyard. The dallan area which had an open space with two openings is also shown with openings closed. Therefore, it also makes it clear that entire dallan area has been converted into room.
14. Such above structural changes which are apparent from the Amin Commission Report as well as the admission of the petitioner that certain structural changes also took place like keeping a fresh ceiling roof upon the room and also kothries, leads to an inevitable conclusion that substantial structural changes have been made.
15. The Amin Commission Report was relied upon by the Judge Small Causes in returning a finding to the effect that structural changes that had taken place made it absolutely clear that the changes had been made not only without the consent of the landlord as per the tenant's own admission but had also damaged the property in terms of the 2 rooms converted into one room and open dallan area also converted into room besides the fact that area of the kitchen got enlarged taking area of Sehan and that too without the consent of landlord
16. An argument is sought to be raised that there is no finding as such upon the structural changes to have to damaged the property to the disadvantage of the landlord and in that regard judgments have also been cited.
17. Besides the fact that structural changes were done without the consent of the landlord and very happily worded findings may not have come up to the above effect [Pratap Narain and another v. District Judge, Azamgarh and another AIR 1996 SC 111 and 1984 (1) ARC 207], in my considered view the findings based upon the admission of the tenant regarding the structural changes or alteration in the building structure stand corroborated by the Amin Commission Report which was also prepared upon the instructions and statements made by the tenant-petitioner himself on the spot as landlord was not present. Such findings, therefore, cannot be questioned on the plea of non-consideration of any material fact or for not rendering due application of mind. Besides that, I find that the Court sitting in revision has dealt with every aspect of the matter to reject the arguments advanced on behalf of the tenant-petitioner as to the correctness of the findings of the trial court.
18. The courts sitting in revision has dealt with all such aspects of the matter as referred to and pleaded by the tenant-petitioner and then it returned findings to the effect that constructions/alterations have resulted in such structural changes that damaged the property to the prejudice of the petitioner. It is a well laid principle of law that issue of structural alteration is to be looked into and decided from the point of view of the landlord. In the case of Gurbachan Singh and another v. Shivalak Rubber Industries and ors that "the decrease or deterioration, in other words the impairment of the worth and usefulness or the value and utility of the building or rented land has to be judged and determined from the point of view of the landlord and hot of the tenant or any one else." A Building belonging to landlord, given on rent to the tenant can of course, be subjected to certain repair work to make it worth living for human being but in the garb of repair work the tenant cannot be permitted to completely alter a construction in a sense that 2 rooms are converted into one room then the kitchen is further re-built enhancing its area taking the Sehan area and courtyard area into it and closing the exits of dallans making use of Sehan impossible. These kinds of structural changes are certainly to the prejudice of the landlord and tenant cannot take the plea that just because the roof structure was falling, he did only repair work. A structure of a building is rented out with the accommodation it has and tenant cannot be permitted to enhance its area in terms of roofed structure or to diminish it to lessen the area in terms of the accommodation.
19. Statutory protection for repair work is granted to the tenant to the extent of repair work only and not beyond that. Repair work means restoring the structure in the form it was and not altering it structurally by tenant to suit his convenience. Three kothries and one room and a drawing room, if are converted into 2 rooms and, a dallan is further converted into a room, then it amounts to substantial change in structure of the property of the landlord, and for him such an act has damaged the property and tenant cannot be permitted to say that he had only undertaken a repair work. It is always open for the tenant to search for an alternative accommodation if the accommodation has not remained worth living.
20. In view of the above, I do not find the judgments passed by the trial court as well as court of revision to be suffering from any manifest error of law and facts so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
21. Thus, petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2024 S.A.