Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is the landlord's case that the tenant was in default of rent since 01.02.1996 and further that he had, without the permission in writing by the landlord, made construction as well as structural alteration in the demised shop, which tended to diminish its value, utility and disfigure it. The basis of pleading a case of structural alteration was the fact that according to the landlord, the tenant, without his permission, had partitioned the demised shop into two and caused the tile worked roof to be removed and replaced by a different roof, supported by girders and covered by stone-slabs. In addition, was the landlord's case that the existing door of the shop had been removed and replaced by another. All these changes were said to constitute structural alteration, that tended to diminish the utility of the demised shop and disfigure it.

7. So far as the case of structural alteration leading to the demised shop's utility being diminished or the shop being disfigured is concerned, it is pleaded that the tenant has not done any structural alteration to the shop and it stays in the position it was when let out. The pleadings of the landlord about the structural alteration prohibited under Section 20(2)(c) of the Act are denied by paraphrase. It is said that the pleaded structural changes do not mention the date, month and year, when they were made. This is by and enlarge the pleaded case of the tenant in answer to the case of structural alteration in the demised shop leading to diminishment of its utility and disfigurement.

33. This Court is afraid that the finding recorded by the Revisional Court, unlike the Trial Court, is flawed for confounding the requirements of Sections 20(2)(c) and 20(2)(d) of the Act. It is also flawed, because it has inferred a case of structural alteration by the putting up of a plywood partition. The plywood partition certainly does not bring about structural alteration. Dismantling the existing tile-worked roof and replacing it by one of stone-slabs with girder support, may. Therefore, the Revisional Court has observed in manifest illegality that partition of the demised shop into two part by a plywood partition, amounts to structural alteration. The other finding recorded is that by use of the demised shop as two, one for housing the flour mill and the other for the tailoring business, certainly leads to diminishing its value and utility, is also manifestly illegal. It is so because the diminishment in value or utility must come from the structural alteration made to the building and not from the use that it is put to. The plywood partition is not a structural alteration, as already said, and, therefore, cannot be linked to the diminishment in value or utility or even disfigurement. The use of a shop for two kinds of trades or business may or may not diminish the shop's utility, but that is not something, which is the consequence of a structural alteration. It may or may not be a case of inconsistent user, prohibited by Section 20(2) (d) of the Act, but that is not the ground on which the suit for eviction has been instituted. The Revisional Court appears to have been cognizant of this folly in the finding and has mentioned it in hesitant words. However, the Revisional Court has gone ahead to say that the plywood partition of the shop and its use for the twin business of the flour mill and the tailor's shop, lead to a diminishment of its value and utility. The said finding is completely beyond the purview of the requirements of Section 20(2) (c) of the Act. The reason is that the Revisional Court has not opined the way it did, because a plywood partition had been put up in the shop, dividing it into two, but the fact that the shop subdivided as it is by a plywood partition is being used for the purpose of two different trades/ business. There is nothing inferred as a diminishment in the value or the utility of the demised shop from any structural change made, but one from the nature of business added to the existing one. There is, therefore, nothing on the findings recorded by the Revisional Court to conclude that any of the structural changes made have led to a diminishment in the value or the utility of the demised shop or its disfigurement.

9. Be that as it may, the subsequent opinion, which is to be formed by a Court, i.e., the effect of construction/structural alternation on accommodation about its value, utility etc. is a finding involving a mixed question of fact and law. This has to be determined on the application of correct principle of law. This has been said by Apex Court in Om Prakash v. Amar Singh [1987 (13) ALR 163 (SC).].

10. The findings regarding alteration/structural changes made by tenant in accommodation in question as recorded by Trial Court, therefore, would have to be taken final since it is finding of fact. The Revisional Court hereat has also not pointed out anywhere in the revisional judgment that the said finding of fact is based on no evidence or that it is perverse or there is otherwise any error or jurisdictional fact. To this extent no interference needs in this case.