Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vii) an eviction order under Clause (j) could be passed if the tenant has carried out such additions or alterations and structural changes in the tenancy premises which had brought about material impairment in the value and utility of premises;
(viii) every construction or alteration does not impair the value and utility of the building and that construction must be of material nature which should substantially diminish the value of the building either from commercial and monetary point of view or from utilisation aspect of the building;
"Any construction by which the structure of the premises is altered amounts to substantial damage to the premises as per the said judgment. Any structure which impairs the rights of the landlord amounts to substantial damage to the premises. Any structure which weakens the wall or puts additional load on the wall amounts to substantial damage to the premises. Admittedly the mezzanine has been constructed and opening has been made towards the roof. This is changing of the structure of the premises. Where structure of the premises are changed which are detrimental to the interests of landlord it amounts to substantial damage within the meaning of Sec. 14(1) (j) read with Section14 (10) of the DRC Act. The court below being impressed by the statement of the appellant that the beauty of the shop was enhanced forgot to look into the changes in the structure which were cause d which were putting loads on the wall. The result was that it dismissed the petition. Appellant was just in raising the grievance that after the permission of 1985 was granted respondent had opened the opening towards the roof from the shop and has constructed mezzanine. This opening has effected the rights of the landlord to raise the structure over the roof of shop in question. It is a substantial damage within the meaning of Section 14(10) of the DRC Act. Consequently, case u/S 14(1) (j) was made out. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be maintained as far as the mezzanine and opening towards the roof is concerned."
"6. Having analysed the reasonings of the courts below, I am of the view that the very fact that the tenant-respondent has punctured the weight-bearing walls of the premises in question and created additional space for himself by way of parchhati equivalent to the floor area, admits of increase of weight on the load-bearing walls and certainly can be said to have caused substantial damage to the premises in question. The tenant cannot damage the walls, erect additional space and yet claim that no substantial damage has been caused to the premises in question. Structural change which brings about additional load on the existing load-bearing walls, is substantial damage to the premises in question. It is not necessary that the walls must crumble under additional weight to bring the mischief of the tenant under Section 14(1)(j) of the Act. Suffice it to say in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the tenant has punctured holes into the walls, created additional space by erecting a parchhati equivalent to the floor area of the room in question and is using the same for either storage of goods and/or residence purposes, would come within the mischief of Section 14(1)(j) of the Act. The tenant is not permitted to make any changes/alterations so as to increase load on the walls which are otherwise designed to hold the structure as was let out to the tenant.

25. Reverting to the instant case, at the cost of repetition, it is established that the construction or extension of the mezzanine floor to the extent of measuring 264.50 Sq Feet on a portion of the mezzanine floor has since been demolished in terms of order dated 02.01.1989, as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid Writ Petition bearing CWP No. 3649/1990 dated 04.12.1991. However, the very fact of construction or extension of mezzanine floor to the extent of demolished 264.50 Sq. Feet and additional 660.49 Sq. Feet that stands regularized otherwise, per se amount to changing or altering the nature and character of the tenancy premises. In other words, the extension of the mezzanine floor has brought about structural changes bringing about additional load on the existing load bearing walls and there is no evidence by the respondent that he had obtained consent of the appellants/landlords prior to carrying out the extension of the mezzanine floor. The law remains very elementary on this point that the tenant cannot be allowed to erect additional space, thereby damaging the walls and yet claim that no substantial damage has been caused to the tenancy premises in question. Although, much mileage was sought to be taken from the testimony of AW­1 Sh. Kailash Joshi or the lack of it, yet there is no denying the fact that the matter as regards construction or extension of the mezzanine floor is squarely covered by the decision dated 02.01.1989 by the Chief Engineer (Civil), NDMC as upheld by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi in the Writ Petition No. 3649 of 1990 decided on 04.12.1991. There is no merit in the plea of the learned Counsel for the LRs of the deceased respondent that no evidence was led about any impairment as to the utility of the tenancy premises as the construction or extension of the mezzanine floor without consent of the Landlords manifestly amounts to causing substantial damages. The construction or extension of the mezzanine was not a temporary alterations or additions by the respondent, which could be easily repaired without causing further damage to the tenancy premises. At the cost of repetition, the issue of impairment of the value and utility of the building is to be seen not from the view of the tenant but from the point of view of the Landlord.