Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
5. The Rent Control Court, on analysing the oral and documentary evidence in the case found that by the alterations in question, the front elevation of the building was changed. The verandah is a common one for all the ten rooms. By the alterations the height of the verandah and the nature of the roof of the verandah in the front portion of the two rooms in question have been changed. The construction of walls separating the common verandah and raising the height of the roof of the common front elevation of the building have caused much change to the building. The main building consists of ten identical rooms and now the front elevation of the two rooms has been considerably changed. The Rent Control Court took note of the admission made by RW1, one of the tenants, that the alterations are permanent in nature. The Rent Control Court held that by the alterations, the value and utility of the building have been materially and permanently reduced. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. The authorities below did not believe the evidence of RW2, who is a tailor conducting his business in the front portion of the shop room in the occupation of the tenant in R.C.P.No.40 of 2000. The authorities below held that the evidence of RW1 would indicate that permission granted by the landlord was only to remove the tiles, even according to the tenants. It was held that the evidence on the side of the tenants, even if it is believed, would only indicate that the landlord permitted them to remove the tiles and replace them with new ones.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prohibition in the rent deed against making construction or alteration to the building is not relevant while considering the petition under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. He contended that Section 11(4)(ii) is to be read independently and eviction can be ordered only if the ingredients thereof are satisfied. The stipulation in the rent deed would have no impact in considering whether the value or utility of the building has been materially and permanently destroyed or reduced.
11. In Ahammad Kanna v. Muhammed Haneef (1967@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE KLT 841), the question considered was whether removal of glass shutters by the tenant and demolition of the separating wall between two rooms to facilitate the trade carried by the tenant would materially and permanently impair the value or utility of the building. It was held in the negative, on the finding that there is no evidence to show that there was any damage to the building by the removal of the wall and that it was easy to replace the glass shutters.
........L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......J .SP 2
17. A particular construction may destroy or reduce the value or utility of the building materially and permanently in the point of view of the landlord; while in the point of view of the tenant, it may enhance the value or utility of the building. The tenants in the present cases contended so. However, it was admitted by RW1 that the alteration is of a permanent nature. The question is whether the point of view of the landlord or that of the tenant is decisive while considering a case under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The Supreme Court in Vipinkumar v. Roshan Lal Anand ((1993) 3 JT (SC) 171)@@ EEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE considered this question and held thus: