BABU MANMOHAN DAS SHAH & ORS. versus BISHUN DAS

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 12-10-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BABU MANMOHAN DAS SHAH & ORS. 
v. 
BISHUN DAS 
October 12, , 1966. 
{K. SuBBA RAo, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT AND J.M. S11ELAT, JJ.) 
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act.3 of 1947 s. 3(1) 
(c)-Whether landlord only entitled to eviction on proof of materiel alte-
ratioru-Or whether proof also nece.sory of 
diminished value of pr .. 
perty--Material alterations what are. 
The appellant who was the owner of two shops rented to the respon-
dent, filed a suit for the latter's ejection under Section 3(1) (c) of the U.P. 
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act Ill of 1947 which provides 
that no suit under the Act can be filed without the permission of the Dia-
trict Magistrate, except on the ground, Inter alia, that the tenant bas, with-
out the permission of the landlord permitted or made such constructions as 
"materially allered the accommodation or is lihiy substantially to diminish 
its value". 
The appellant claimed that the respondent had carried Oil! 
material alterations consisting of lowering of the floor level of the shop by 
about Ii ft. by excavating eanh and putting up a new floor, of lowering 
correspondingly the front door which entailed culling and removal of the 
plinthband on which the door rested, of lowering likewise the level of the 
staircase 
in 
the 
shop 
and 
putting 
up 
new steps, 
and 
lowering 
the 
height of the Chabutra outside the shop so as 10 correspond it to 
the level of the new ground floor of the shop. 
The trial Judge as well as the First Additional Civil Jud~<:, in appeal, 
concurrontly found that the respondent had carried out material alterations 
within the meaning of s. 3(1)(c); the appellant was therefore entitled to 
file a suit without obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate and to 
a decree of eviction. In the appeal before the High Coun it was rontended 
on behalf of the respondent that on a proper interpretation of Clause (c) 
of Section 3 (I), the appellant had also to establish that the alteration•, be-
sides being material alterations, were likely substantially to diminish Ille 
value of the accommodation. 
In other words. the word "or" in 
Clause 
(c) should be read as "and". The High Coun accepted this contentioll 
and held that as there was no finding by the lower coun that any harm or 
damage had been cawed to the buiklir.g the appellant was not entitled to 
relief under s. 3(1) (c). 
HELD : Allowing the appeal : Even if the alterations did 
not e&ll8<l 
any damage to the premises or did not substantially diminish their value, the 
alterations were material alteration~ and on that basis alone the appellants 
were entilled to evict the respondent. [841 HJ 
The language of the clause makes it clear that the legislature wanted to 
lay down two alternatives which would furnish a ground to the landlord to 
sue without the District Magistrate's permission, that is, where the tenant 
has made such construction which would materially alter the accommoda-
tion or which would be likely to sub!tantially diminish its value. [839 F-0) 
Hyman and Anr. v. Rose [1912] A.C. 623; distinguished. Wate1 v. 
Rowland and Another f!952) 2 Q.B. 12; Blackmore v. Dimmer [1903) l 
Ch. 158; referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MANMOHANDAS v. B!SHNUDAS (She/at, /.) 
837 
Although no general definition can be given of what "material _altera· 
tions" mean as such a question would depend on the facts and circum· 
•tances of e~ch 'case the alterations in the present case amounted to 
"material alterations'; as the coll8truction carried out by the ~pendent bad 
effect of altering the form and structure of the accommodation. [840 DJ 
CIVIL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION :. Civil Appeal No. 643 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
January 17, 1961 of the Allahabad· High Court in. S. A. No. 90 of 
1959. 
• 
CB. Agarwala, Champa! Rai, KC. Agarwala and P. C Agarwala, 
for the appellants. 
S. T. Desai and J. ·p. Goyal, for the respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sbelat, J. This appeal· by. special leave is directed against 
the judgment and decree passed by the High Court at Allahabad 
in Second Appeal No. 930 of 1959. 
Two questions arise in this appeal: (!) with regard to inter-
pretation of s. 3(l)(c) of'the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent 
and Eviction Act, III of 1947 and (2) whether the alterations carried 
out by the respondent,tenant were alterations which materially 
altered the accommodation within

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.