Associated Hotels Of India Ltd., Delhi vs S. B. Sardar Ranjit Singh on 7 December, 1967
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged
that the order passed by the High Court cannot be
maintained as it having been found that the tenant
had made structural changes as far back as 1968 and
the landlord having issued a notice in 1970,
whereafter the landlord did not file any suit for
eviction on the assurance given by the tenant, it
would be deemed that it amounted to a written
consent at least from 1970. The learned Counsel
urged that it was not disputed that the structural
changes included construction of a latrine in the
ground floor which was used by the landlord him
self, therefore, the expression 'without the consent
of the landlord' should be construed liberally so as
to advance the purposes of enactment and consequently the suit of the landlord
was liable to be dismissed on this ground. The learned Counsel further submitted that in any case even if it is accepted
that the tenant had made structural changes, the suit could not be decreed unless there was a finding that the construction has resulted in diminishing the value of the building. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh and urged that in view of the clear provisions of the law that the written consent of the landlord was necessary, the plea of waiver could not be set up, therefore, the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the revising authority and decreeing the suit of the landlord.