http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: OM PAL.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANAND SWARUP (DEAD BY LRS.)

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/10/1988

BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)

CITATION:  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 391  1988 SCC  (4) 545  JT 1988 (4)    46        1988 SCALE  (2)1269

ACT:     East  Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,  1949:  Section 13(2)(iii)--‘Acts  as  are likely to impair  materially  the value  or  utility  of  the  building’--Interpretation  of-- landlord--When  entitled  to obtain order  of  eviction--The construction by the tenant must not only be one effecting or diminishing value of utility of building but also impairment must be of a material nature.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant  had  taken  on lease  a  room  from  the respondent  for running a dry-cleaning shop.  The  appellant later  put up a parchhati in the shop for  storing  clothes. The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the tenant  under section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,  1949  on  the  ground that  the  construction  of  the parchhati  was  an act causing material  impairment  to  the building.  Both  the  Rent  Controller  and  the   Appellate Authority upheld the contention of the respondent. The  High Court, in revision, affirmed their findings.     Before  this  Court, it was contended on behalf  of  the appellant  that  (i)  the respondent  had  not  adduced  any evidence,  although the burden of proof was on him, to  show that   by  fixing  the  parchhati  the  building  had   been materially impaired so as to affect the value or utility  of the building in any manner; (ii) the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had rendered their findings against  the appellant without any basis for it; (iii) the High Court had failed  to  comprehend  section  13(2)(iii)  in  its  proper perspective; and (iv) the High Court had erred in   treating the  findings  of  the Rent  Controller  and  the  Appellate Authority  as  pure  findings  of  fact  whereas  they  were findings on a mixed question of law and fact.     Allowing the appeal, it was,     HELD:  (1)  It is not every construction  or  alteration that would result in material impairment to the value or the utility of the building. [396E]     (2)  In order to attract s. 13(2)(iii) the  construction must  not only be one affecting or diminishing the value  or                                                    PG NO 391                                                    PG NO 392 utility  of  the building but such impairment must be  of  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

material  nature  i.e.  of  a  substantial  and  significant nature. [396E-F]     (3) When a construction is alleged to materially  impair the value or utility of a building, the construction  should be  of such a nature as to substantially diminish the  value of  the  building either from the  commercial  and  monetary point  of  view  or  from  the  utilitarian  aspect  of  the building. [396G H; 397A]     (4) The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority  had rendered  their findings without any basis for it,  and  the High  Court  erred  in  accepting  those  findings   without applying  the correct principles of law  underlying  section 13(2)(iii). [397B]     Govindaswamy  Naidu v. Pushpalammal, AIR 1952  Mad  181; Smt.  Savitri  Devi  v. U. S. Bajpai, AIR  1956  Nagpur  60; Charan Singh v . Shrimati Ananthi & Ors., [1966] 6 PLR  780; G. Natarajan v. P. Thandavarayan, [1969] RCJ 733; Shri  Anup Chand & Ors. v. Shri Trilok Singh, [1977] 1 RCJ 752;  Gobind Ram  v.  Smt. Kaushalya Rani & Ors., [1983] 1  RCJ  295;  Om Prakash v. Amar Singh & Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 458 and Brijendra Nath  Bhargava & Anr. v. Harsh Wardhan & Ors., [1988] 1  SCC 454, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No  2471  of 1980.     From  the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.80 of  the  High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No 292 of 1976     Sultan Singh and T L Garg for the Appellant.     Harbans  Lal,  S  M  Ashri and  Ashok  Mahajan  for  the Respondent.     The Judgment of the court was delivered by     NATARAJAN,  J.  In  this appeal by special  leave  by  a tenant  against the dismissal of his Revision under  Section l5(5)  of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction  Act,  1949 (hereinafter  referred to as the ‘Act’ ) by the High  Court, what falls for consideration is the manner of construing the words "acts as are likely to impair materially the value  or utility of the building" occurring in Section 13(2)(iii)  of the Act.                                                    PG NO 393     A  parchhati  put up by the tenant/appellant in  a  shop taken on lease by him for running a Dry Cleaning laundry has been  construed  by the Rent Controller  and  the  Appellate Authority  as  an  act causing material  impairment  to  the building and the High Court has affirmed their findings  and dismissed  the  revision  preferred by  the  appellant.  The correctness  of the order of the High Court in  Revision  is challenged in this appeal.     The  facts  are not in controversy and  may  briefly  be stated  as  under.  For  running  a  dry-cleaning  shop  the appellant had taken on lease a room from the respondent on a monthly  rent of Rs.30. The appellant put up a parchhati  in the  shop  for  storing the clothes  before  and  after  dry cleaning.  The parchhati has been made to rest on the  walls by means of wooden balas inserted in the wall through  holes made therein.     The  appellant did not dispute the construction  of  the parchhati  but contended that the alteration had  been  made several  years  ago  and that too with the  consent  of  the respondent  and  secondly the parchhati did  not  weaken  or impair  the utility or value of the shop in any  manner.  In support  of  his  contentions, the  appellant  examined  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

neighbouring  shop  owners to prove that the  parchhati  had been  in existence for long and a retired engineer  by  name Amril Lal as PW-3 to speak about the parchhati being only  a temporary   construction  and  the  said  construction   not affecting  the  structural soundness or the utility  of  the shop   in  any  manner  Notwithstanding  the   appellant   s contentions  and  the  evidence  of  the  expert,  the  Rent Controller  and  the Appellate Authority  rendered  findings against  him and the High Court accepted those  findings  in the following manner:     "However  in  the  case  on hand,  it  is  not  a  minor alteration    but  a substantial structural  change  in  the building  Again. the fact that the wooden balcony  has  been constructed  with the support of nuts and bolts  would  also not  make  any  difference  to  the  position.  With  modern technique,   the  construction  of  even  a   multi-storeyed building  has been made possible by the use  of  fabrication with steel material, including nuts and bolts. Moreover, the two  Authorities  below have come to  a  concurrent  finding after considering the evidence produced by the parties, that the  balcony in question tantamounts to material  impairment of the value and utility of the premises."                                                    PG NO 394     Arguing  for  the appellant, Mr. Sultan  Singh,  learned counsel  stated  that  while the  Rent  Controller  and  the Appellate Authority have rendered their findings against the appellant  without  there being any basis for it,  the  High Court  has  failed to comprehend Section 13(2)(iii)  in  its proper  perspective  and  this has  led  to  miscarriage  of justice. It was urged that while the appellant had  examined an  expert  PW-3 Amrit Lal to prove that the  Parchhati  was only  a  temporary  wooden fixture  which  could  be  easily removed  at any time without any damage being caused to  the walls  of  the building, the respondent had no  adduced  any contra evidence, although the burden of proof was on him  to show  that  by fixing the parchhati the  building  has  been materially impaired so as to affect the value or utility  of the building in any manner and attracting Section 13(2)(iii) to  the  facts  of the case.  The  learned  counsel  further contended  that since the High Court has erred  in  treating the  findings  of  the Rent  Controller  and  the  Appellate Authority  as  pure  findings  of  fact  whereas  they  were findings  on a mixed question of law and fact, the order  of the  High Court in Revision suffers from a serious flaw  and it needs correction by this Court.     In elaboration of his argument, Mr. Sultan Singh  stated that  the  words  "materially  impaired"  have  a   distinct connotation  and as such any and every alteration made in  a building will not necessarily constitute material impairment to  the building. The counsel referred to the definition  of the  word ’impair" in the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha  Aiyar (Reprint Edition) 1987 at page 548     ’Impair.  To  diminish in quality  value  excellence  or strength of a thing.     The  word  ‘impair’ means to make worse; to  weaken;  to unfeeble  To make or become worse or less; to lessen  reduce or diminish the quantity or quality."     The  learned counsel also referred to several  decisions of High Courtsand of this Court where the same question  has been  considered  by the courts. The decisions  are  to  the following effects.     Every  act of waste by the tenant will not  entitle  the landlord to obtain an order of eviction under the provisions of Section 7 (Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control  Act), 1946  1I  cannot  be  laid down as a  rule  of  law  that  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

demolition  of  a  wall in a building  must  necessarily  be deemed  to  be  an act of waste which is  likely  to  impair materially  the  value  or the utility  of  the  building  " Govindaswamy Naidu v. Pushpalammal, AIR 1952 Madras 181.                                                    PG NO 395     "A  landlord,  in order to be entitled to the  grant  of permission to terminate the tenancy, is required not only to prove an act of waste on the part of the tenant but also  to prove  that the said act is likely to impair materially  the value  or  the utility of the house," Smt. Savitri  Devi  v. U.S. Bajpai, AIR t956 Nagpur 60 and Charan Singh v. Shrimati Ananthi & Ors., [1966] 6 PLR 780.     "Drilling  of a hole to let out smoke by the tenant  who had taken the building for hoteliering business and  removal of  a portion of parapet wall for temporarily  accommodating the  hotel employees housed in the adjacent building  cannot be  said  to be acts which would impair the utility  of  the building  or its value." G. Natarajan v.  P.  Thandavarayan, [1969] RCJ 733.     "Mere construction of a false roof which is only  wooden or the setting of a wooden stair or making of a few holes in the roof for letting out the smoke from the hotel, cannot be held  to  be such material alterations which may  result  in changing  the  character or nature of the premises.  "  Shri Anup Chand & Ors. v . Shri Trilok Singh, [1977] I RCJ 752.     "A  wooden  parchhati constructed by  a  tenant  (tailor master) within the demised shop for the purpose of providing more accommodation to his employees and the opening up of  a ventilator  for that purpose and the putting up of a  wooden staircase  to  reach1 the parchhati would not  constitute  a material  alteration  atracting  the  operation  of  Section 13(2)(iii)  of the Act.‘Gobind Ram v. Smt. Kaushalya Rani  & Ors., [1983] 1 RCJ 295.     In Om Prakash v. Amar Singh & Ors., [1987] l SCC 458  it was  held  that the raising of a temporary wall  of  6  feet height  in a hall in the demised premises,  without  digging any foundation in the floor of the hall so as to convert the hall  into  two  portions for  convenient  use  without  the consent of the landlord and the extension of a  pre-existing tin  shed on the open land adjacent to the accommodation  by constructing  a wall made by bricks or mud and enclosing  it by  bamboo  tatters  would  not  amount  to  making  of  any structural  change of a substantial character either in  the form  or  structure  of the accommodation and  as  such  the construction  did not materially alter the accommodation  It was observed that "the expression ’materially alter’ means a substantial change in the character, form and the  structure of  the  building without destroying its identity."  It  was                                                    PG NO 396 further pointed out in the decision that the findings of the court regarding constructions would be findings of fact  but the  question whether the constructions  materially  altered the accommodation is a mixed question of fact and law  which should  be  determined  on the application  of  the  correct principles. In a recent case Brijendra Nath Bhargava &  Anr. v.  Harsh  Wardhan &  Ors., [1988]1 SCC 454 the  tenant  had constructed  a wooden structure inside the  showroom  making the  showroom a cabin and a balcony or dochhati on the  roof of the cabin with a wooden staircase inside the cabin to  go to the balcony. The Court held that the constructions  would not  constitute in law material alterations to the  tenanted premises so as to give a cause of action to the landlord for filing a suit for eviction.     Though  these decisions construed the words  ‘materially alter’  we  are of the view that the reasoning  adopted  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

construing  those  words would logically  be  attracted  for construing the words "materially impaired? with which we are concerned.     In  the  light  of these decisions, if  we  examine  the present  case  we  find that the  Rent  Controller  and  the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have obviously failed   to  construe  Section  13(2)(iii)  in  its   proper perspective and they have failed to apply the correct  legal tests  for judging the nature of the constructions  made  by the appellant As has been repeatedly pointed out in  several decisions  it is not every construction or  alteration  that would  result  in material impai modation" and as  such  the construction  of a chabutra, almirah, opening of  window  or closing a verandah by temporary structure or replacing of  a leaking roof or placing partition in a room or making  minor alterations  for  the convenient use  of  the  accommodation would not materially alter the building. It would  therefore follow  that  when a construction is alleged  to  materially impair the value or utility of a building, the  construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish  the value  of  the  building  either  from  the  commercial  and                                                    PG NO 397 monetary point of view or from the utilitarian aspect of the building.     Having   regard   to  the  nature   of   the   temporary construction put up by the appellant and the evidence of the expert witness examined by him which remains  uncontroverted by  any expert’s evidence on the respondent’s side, we  find no difficulty in holding that the lower courts had  rendered their  findings without any basis for it and the High  Court has  erred in accepting those findings without applying  the correct principles of law underlying Section 13(2)(iii).     The learned counsel for the respondent had no  effective answer for the contentions of the appellant’s counsel except to  say that the High Court was justified in  affirming  the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Controller and  the Appellate   Authority  and  hence  there  is  no   need   or justification for this Court to interfere with the order  of the  High Court We are unable to countenance  this  argument because  the  High  Court has failed to  apply  the  correct principles of law while exercising its Revisional Powers.     In the light of our conclusions, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court in civil revision as well as the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are set aside and the respondent’s  petition  for eviction will  stand  dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. R.S.S.                                      Appeal allowed