Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

major changes and structural changes had been carried out by them without the written consent of the landlord as well as Dr. Chaman Lal Gupta. It was also denied that the landlord and his uncle had been frequently visiting the Branch of the premises as was alleged by the of tenant-Company.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent "1.

rt Controller framed the following issues:

Company in order to convert two sets of accommodation into one unit.

This witness further stated that window was opened in the joint wall belonging to him and Dr. Chaman Lal Gupta 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 the said witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, he emphatically denied that the changes in issue were in fact carried out in the premises in question before the other building of Dr. Chaman Lal Gupta 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 Chaman Lal Gupta was taken on rent. It was .

Company without the consent of the landlord. Learned Rent Controller also took note of the agreement executed between the tenant-Company and Dr. Chaman Lal Gupta Ex. P2, 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, it was held by the learned Rent Controller that neither joint wall was permitted to be of demolished nor window was permitted to be opened nor passage was permitted to be carved out. Accordingly, it was held by the learned Rent rt Controller that the tenant-Company had carried out structural changes without the consent of the landlord which were material in nature and which had affected the value and utility of premises and on these basis, learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition.

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-