Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. pn the contrary in the decision in the case of Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh, 1979 Punjab Law Reporter 750 this Court dealt with the question whether the tenant had made structural changes. He removed one wall to convert two shops into the one. This Court held that ground of eviction was available and in paragraph 7 the findings returned were:-

"From the aforesaid report it is evident that the petitioner has made great structural changes in the shops. He even removed one of the walls to convert the two shops into one. He removed doors, intervening portion of the shops and the Kothris behind it. The question is whether by making the said alternations, there is impairment in value or utility of the building or not."

Similarly in the case of Rameshwar Dass v. Jugal Kishore, 1980(2) Rent Law Reporter 373 this Court held that the question as to if there is a material alteration which affects the property has to be inferred from the structural changes that have been made. Herein a part of the wall had been demolished and door was fixed therein. It was concluded that ground of eviction was available. The findings are reproduced below: -

"There is no dispute that the question of impairment of the value or utility of the demised premise is a question of fact. It has to be determined taking into consideration the situation of the property, the use of which it is being put and the view point of the landlord about this also plays a great part. The fact has to be determined on the basis of evidence by the Rent Courts. The term 'material alternation' is to be taken in its ordinary meaning. If taking this term in this manner the Court comes to a conclusion that the alteration has materially or substantially changed the structure, then it would fall within the ambit of the provision for its interpretation in favour of the landlord. Both the tribunals drew an inference on facts that the act of the petitioner in demolishing a part of the wall and fixing a door in it has materially diminished or impaired the value or utility of the premises. This being a question of fact is to be interfered with in revision only if the assessment of evidence is erroneous or the conclusion on fact drawn on the basis is palpably wrong or improper. The scope of the revision in this Court under the provisions of the Act is not very wide."

A Division Bejich of this Court in the case of Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories and Anr., 1982(1) All India Rent Control Journal 1 dealth with the similar question and had concluded:-

"It is with the aforesaid approach towards Section 13(2) (iii) of the Act that one must notice that broadly there is a consensus of judicial opinion in this particular context and also in the context of corresponding provisions of other rent statutes that any material structural alterations which tend to change the nature and the character of the building would come within the mischief of the statute. The use of the word 'material' in the provisions only effectuates the hallowed rule of the law that it does not take account of trifles and consequently both the impairing of its value or its utility must be of a substantial and not inconsequential nature."