9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of s. 3(1)(c) of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III of 1947, and whether alterations made by the tenant constituted material alterations.
In this case, the appellants owned a building with two shops, one of which was rented to the respondent. The respondent later rented the adjacent shop as well. The respondent carried out alterations without the appellants' consent, including lowering the floor level, front door, staircase, and Chabutra. The appellants claimed these alterations were material alterations under s. 3(1)(c) of the Act, allowing them to file for eviction without the District Magistrate's permission. Both the trial court and the First Additional Civil Judge found the alterations to be material and granted eviction. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, stating that the alterations did not substantially diminish the value of the accommodation. The appellants argued that the High Court's interpretation of clause (c) was incorrect, as it provides for either material alterations or alterations likely to diminish value. The Supreme Court held that the clause's language is clear and provides two alternatives for eviction without permission. The Court rejected the argument that the word "or" should be read as "and," as it would not align with the legislative intent. The alterations made by the respondent were deemed material as they altered the form and structure of the accommodation significantly, entitling the appellants to eviction without the District Magistrate's permission. The Court emphasized that the term "material alterations" does not require a general definition but depends on the facts of each case. The alterations in this case materially changed the form and structure of the accommodation, meeting the criteria for material alterations. The Court distinguished previous cases to illustrate what constitutes structural alterations. Lowering the ground floor, changing the front door, staircase, and Chabutra were deemed structural alterations that significantly altered the premises. The High Court's reliance on a previous case was deemed irrelevant, as the alterations in this case met the threshold for material alterations under clause (c) of the Act. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in its interpretation and allowed the appeal, restoring the eviction order issued by the First Additional Civil Judge. The respondent was directed to pay costs to the appellants.
|
