1973 (5) TMI 102 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the constructions made by the defendant amounted to material alterations.
2. Whether the constructions were made in 1964 or 1967.
3. Whether the right to sue for ejectment could be availed by the plaintiff who purchased the property after the constructions were made.
4. Whether the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed due to the specific ground of constructions being made in 1967 not being substantiated.
5. Whether the plaintiff can rely on the rights of the previous owner under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the constructions made by the defendant amounted to material alterations:

The court examined the nature of the constructions made by the defendant, which included breaking open the roof to install a window, constructing a water tank, fixing a condenser, and making enclosures on the roof. These alterations were deemed to have materially altered the accommodation. The court referenced criteria laid down in previous cases (M.D. Shah v. Bishun Das and Sita Ram Saran v. Johri Mal) to determine that these constructions indeed amounted to material alterations.

2. Whether the constructions were made in 1964 or 1967:

The trial court initially found that the constructions were made in 1967, based on the evidence provided by Hafiz Ali (P.W. 1), an Assistant Engineer in Water Works, who stated that the water connection necessary for the ice candy plant was granted on April 22, 1967. However, the lower appellate court found that the constructions were made in 1964 based on documents permitting the installation of motors for the ice candy industry. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, agreed with the trial court that at least some constructions (water tank, enclosures, condenser, and water pipes) were made near April 22, 1967.

3. Whether the right to sue for ejectment could be availed by the plaintiff who purchased the property after the constructions were made:

The court held that the right to sue for ejectment due to material alterations is not personal to the original landlord but is a right attached to the property. Therefore, under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff, as the transferee of the property, could avail of this right. The court cited multiple precedents supporting this interpretation, including Abdul Rahman v. Phiroze Cursetji and Somesundaran v. M.P. Co-operative Society.

4. Whether the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed due to the specific ground of constructions being made in 1967 not being substantiated:

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the suit should be dismissed because the specific ground of constructions being made in 1967 was not substantiated. The court noted that the critical factor was whether the constructions amounted to material alterations, not the exact year they were made. The evidence presented was sufficient to establish that material alterations had occurred, regardless of the year.

5. Whether the plaintiff can rely on the rights of the previous owner under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act:

The court affirmed that under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee of the property (the plaintiff) possesses all the rights of the lessor, except for the right to recover arrears of rent due before the transfer. The court found no contract to the contrary in the sale deed, thus allowing the plaintiff to rely on the rights of the previous owner to sue for ejectment based on material alterations made by the defendant.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the constructions made by the defendant amounted to material alterations and that the plaintiff, as the transferee of the property, could sue for ejectment based on these alterations. The court found no merit in the appellant's submissions and upheld the trial court's decree for ejectment.