GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR. versus SHIVALAK RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 23-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
SHIVALAK RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 1996 
(KULDIP SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13 (2) (iii) : Tenant 
making additions and alterations in the demised premises-Whether matelial 
impaimient of the value of the building-Whether tenant liable to eviction. 
A 
B 
c 
East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 : Section 13(2) (iii) : Expres-
sions "to impair matelially" and "value" ocurring therein-Meaning of. 
Section 13(2) (iii) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 
makes the tenant of the demised premises liable to eviction where he has 
committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility D 
of the building or rented land. 
The landlord appellants initiated eviction proceedings on the 
grounds of subletting and alterations in the demised premises impairing 
materially its value and utility. It was alleged that the tenant-respondents E 
had, without written consent and in violation of the terms of tenancy 
converted the five shops in the said premises into sheds, store, kothries 
for residential purpose, and office by removing the intervening partition 
walls and doors, converted the verandah in front of the shops into sheds 
by closing it from the front by masonary wo~k, converted the open space 
at the back of the premises into a shed with a pucca roof, constructed a F 
lintel roof over all the shops by removing their original roof thereby 
completely changing the shape of the building, demolished the boundary 
wall on the western side to make a passage to the adjoining residential 
property of Respondent No. 1, and that instead of carrying on trading 
activity in the said premises the respondents had installed machinery and G 
started an industry without written consent from the appellants. They also 
took the plea that tenant~respondents were in arrears of rent. 
The respondents denied all the adverse allegations with regard to 
the alterations and additions in the demised premises. They took the stand 
that these were made prior to the year 1971 before they were inducted as H 
997 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
tenant. They however admitted the construction of the shed, which accord-
ing to them was constructed under the terms and conditions of the tenancy 
and with permission of the landlords. They further pleaded that the 
demised premises were let out for carrying industrial business. 
The Rent Controller decided all the issues in faV<~ur of the landlord-
B appellants except those relating to the alleged unauthorised additions and 
alterations. He took the view that even if it be accepted that the tenant-
respondents had made the additions and alterations as alleged the same 
did not materially impair the value and utility of the demised premises 
and that the enclosure of the verandah or replacement of the roof of the 
C shops also did not fall within the mischief of the provisions of section 13 (2) 
(iii), and dismissed the eviction application. The appellate authority af-
firmed the findings of the Rent Controller. The High Court dismissed the 
civil revision in limine. 
D 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the.Court. 
HELD : 1. Both the courts below fell into a serious error in failing 
to apply the correct principles in determining whether the additions and 
alterations alleged to have been made by the respondents in the demised 
premises had materially impaired the value and or utility of the premises. 
. 
r 
-
[1006-B) 
2. The meaning of the expression "to impair materially" used in 
section 13(2) (iii), in common parlance would mean to diminish in quality, 
strength or value substantially.· In other words, to make a thing or sub-
stance worse and deteriorate. The word "impair" is a relative term afford-
F 
ing different meaning in different context and situations. Here in the 
context the term "impair materially" has been used to mean considerable 
decrease in quality which may be measured with reference. to the antece-
dent state of things as it existed earlier in point of time as compared.to a 
later stage after the alleged change is made or affected suggesting impair-
ment. Further, the use of the word "value" in the sub-clause means intrinsic 
G worth of a thing. In other words, utility of an object satisfying, directly or 
indirectly, the needs or desires of a person. Thus, the ground for eviction 
of a tenant would be available to a landlord against the tenant under 
secti

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