Sudershan Kumar v. Tejinder Singh .

J.V Gupta, J.:— This is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

2. Tejinder Singh, landlord, rented out the premises which are the rented land measuring 9′ × 15′ vide rent note dated November 22, 1978, Exhibit A.W 1/8, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The ejectment application was filed on November 16, 1972, on the ground that the tenant was guilty of such acts as were likely to impair materially the value and utility of the demised land inasmuch as the tenant had raised construction of a permanent nature thereon for which the landlord had to file the suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain him from making further construction, wherein a temporary injunction was granted in September, 1972. The tenant had been a source of nuisance to him. In the written statement, the tenant denied the said allegations. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that. It was quite clear that the tenant had raised parmanent construction on the suit land without the written consent of of the landlord which was later on demolished in pursuance of the decree of the civil Court against the tenant. It was further concluded that by raising the permanant construction without the written consent of the landlord, the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the rented land. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against him. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affimred the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against the tenant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord nowhere pleaded as to how the construction raised by the tenant load materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and that being so, no eviction order could be passed against him. It was also contended that even if the tenant violated the terms of the lease deed by raising construction ever the vacant land, that, by itself, was no ground for his eviction therefrom. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Om Prakash v. Amar Singh . 1987 1 SCC 458 and Sadhu Ram v. Niranjan Dass . 1983 2 R.C.R 446..

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that by raising the permanent construction over the vacant land which was later on got demolished in execution of the civil Court decree, it was quite evident that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Siri Ram v. Smt. Shila Rani . 1982 84 PLR 591..

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

6. It is the common case of the parties, that according to the terms of the rent note, Exhibit R.W 1/8, the tenant was not authorised to raise any permanent construction on the vacant land, in question. In spite of that, he raised permanent construction on the vacant land for which the landlord had to file a civil suit for to grant of the permanent injunction against him. It was in execution of the civil Court decree that the said construction was removed by the tenant. In these circumstances, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant that it had not materially impaired the value and utility of the rented land, Om Parkash's and Sadhu Ram's cases (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the tenant have no applicability to the facts of the present case. In Om Parkash's case (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that material alteration means substantial change in character, form and structure of building without destroying its identity. The very fact that the tenant raised permanent construction over the vacant land without the permission of the landlord as well as against the terms of the rent note, is itself sufficient to prove that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the rented land. It was held by this Court in Siri Ram's case (supra), that where on the land rented out by the original owner, the petitioner was permitted to construct a shop thereon but he constructed a new room along with an incomplete bala khana and a contention was raised that the Courts below were not justified in ordering eviction, by raising unauthorised construction on the site, the value and utility of the building had been impaired. As a matter of fact, it will depend on the facts and circumstances of such case as to whether a particular alteration or construction had impaired the value and utility of the building or the rented land, as the case may be, materially, or not. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has been rightly held by both the authorities below that by raising permanent construction over the vacant land, the tenant had materially impaired its value and utility.

7. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are paid within one month from today along with an undertaking, in writing that after the expiry of the said period, the premises would be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlord and the future rent will be paid regularly monthly, in advance, by the tenth of every month.

H.L.S

Petition dismissed.