Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Prakash and proposed to rent out the said accommodation to them. As per the tenants, both the present landlord as well as Dr. Gyan Prakash were asked to make some changes in between the sets so that both sets could be used as one unit so as to make it convenient to the tenants to of use the property as a single office. This was agreed to by the landlord and Dr. Gyan Prakash, his brother and they accordingly carved out one rt passage in the shape of an open door in the common wall separating the sets. They also opened one small service window in the said wall. As per the tenants, these minor changes were made by the landlord and his brother of their own free will. As per the tenants, as per the desire of the two brothers, two separate rent deeds were made in respect of their separate rent accommodations and the same were in fact in occupation of the tenants since 1981. On these basis, it was contended by the tenants, that no additions or structural changes had been made by them at any point of time. According to the tenants, the landlord as well as his brother were frequently visiting the Branch Office premises ever since the inception of their respective tenancies and they were fully aware of the structural position of the premises. On these basis, the tenants denied the claim of the landlord.

5. In the rejoinder, landlord categorically denied that any changes had been made in the property by him at the time of renting out of his set to the tenants in the year 1981 as was being alleged by the .

tenants. It was also denied that the petition had been filed either with the malafide intention or ulterior motive to increase the rental value. It was reiterated by the landlord that the tenant-company had damaged the main wall and had materially impaired value and utility of the building of and it was emphatically denied by the landlord that the alterations had been made by him as alleged by the tenant company. In the rejoinder, rt landlord categorically denied that he was the brother of Dr. Gyan Prakash and stated that he was brother of father of Dr. Gyan Prakash. He also denied that he alongwith Dr. Gyan Prakash had approached the then Branch Manager of the tenant-Company and proposed to them to take on rent his accommodation and thereafter he and Dr. Gyan Prakash had made changes in their sets so that both sets could be used conveniently by the Company as a single office. It was further denied by the landlord that changes effected were only minor in nature. As per the landlord, the unilateral changes/alterations carried out by the tenant-Company were major changes and structural changes had been carried out by them without the written consent of the landlord as well as Dr. Gyan Prakash.

belonging to him and Dr. Gyan Prakash and thus structural changes were carried out by the tenant-Company without his consent, which had otherwise also caused intensive damage to the building in question and had impaired its utility. Learned Rent Controller further held that though of the said witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, he emphatically denied that the changes in issue were in fact carried out in rt the premises in question before the building of lanlord was rented out in year 1981. He also disputed that service window and passage was opened with his consent. Learned Rent Controller took note of the fact that specific stand taken by the tenant-Company was that though the structural changes were carried out in the shape of opening of window and passage, but the same was done with the consent of the landlord before the set of landlord was taken on rent. Learned Rent Controller further held that the contention of the tenant-Company that the landlord had agreed for the conversion of two sets into one unit stood disputed and, therefore, it was apparent that structural changes were carried out by the tenant-Company without the consent of the landlord. Learned Rent Controller also took note of the agreement executed between the tenant-Company and Dr. Gyan Prakash, in which it was clearly recited in Para Nos. 6 and 7 that the tenants will not make any structural changes in the premises in question and the tenants were permitted to erect wooden partitions, counters and cabins without causing any damage or change to the structural position of the leased premises. On these basis, .

25. In the backdrop of the law discussed above, when we come to .

the facts of the present case, in my considered view, the findings returned by both the learned Courts below to the effect that not only material alterations were carried out with the demised premises by the tenant-

Company without the consent of the landlord, the alterations so carried of out also had materially affected the value and utility of the premises cannot be faulted with. It has come on record that material impairment rt which had been carried out by the tenant-Company was that they had carried out the structural changes without the written consent of the landlord by carving out one passage in the shape of an open door in the common wall which separated the set of the landlord from the adjoining independent set and besides this, one small service window was also opened in the wall. Result of this material alteration was that it materially impaired the value and utility of the building because the changes so carried out by the tenant-Company converted two independent sets into a common unit and incidentally these two independent sets were not owned by common landlord. Therefore, in my considered view, it has been rightly held by both the learned Courts below that structural changes carried out by the tenant-Company had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises, which calls for eviction of the tenant-