IDUL HASAN & ORS. versus RAJINDRA KUMAR JAIN

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 01-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

IDUL HASAN & ORS. 
v. 
RAJINDRA KUMAR JAIN 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1989 
IB 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
c 
' 
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947-
Section J( l)jc)-Eviction challenged. 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eyiction) -
Act, 1972-Effect of repeal-Vis-a-vis the rights of the parties. 
,.. 
The appellants are the tenants of premises situated in the District'.of 
Bijnor. The suit for their eviction was filed in 1967 on the ground that 
they (tenants) had made material alteration in the property and as sucn 
were liable for ejectment under section 3(1)(c) of the U.P. (Temporary) 
I!> 
Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947. The appellants did not dispute 
the. Cf!~S_tructions fo the demised premises, but asserted th-al the con-
structions in question bad been made with a view to save the building 
from rain-water and fire and the cunstructions were not such which 
would render them liable for eviction as contemplated under section 3 
of the Act of 1947. The appellants also pleaded that the constructions 
IE 
were effected with the permission of the landlord. The learned'Munsif, 
who iried the suit h_~d _!lt~Lth_!_ c1ms!_r1Ictionshad been made b:y the 
tenants appellants without the consent/knowledge of the landlord and 
that ~be Cl!nstructions am~unted to "material alterations". He accord-
inglyi!ecreed the landlord's suit. The First Appellate Court, which Is;the 
Civfl Judge at11rmelCtbe de.;:ee ~i evktion by Iii; order dated 16th 
IF 
Feb. 1984. 
Thereupon the appellants we,nt in second appeal before the High 
Court. The High Court too dismissed the appeal. It found _th_at the 
• 
constructions have been made by demolishing the old structures, by 
conversion of six Kucbha Kothas into pucca ones and an entirely new 
G constructions had come up in their place. It further found that the 
accommodation had been increased by enclosing the open space which 
most have been possible only by raising walls etc. In any case, accord-
ing to the finding of the High Court, the property looked different from 
what originally it was. Thus the alterations made by the appellants were 
material alterations and as such came within the mischief of section 
H 3(l)(c) of the Act 1947. 
-s-
; 
!DUL HASAN v. R.K. JAIN 
9 
,. 
Hence this appeal by the appellants-tenants. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: Under Section 3(I)(c) of the Act it is apparent that the 
grounds for eviction could be either such construction which materially 
altered the accommodation or alternatively is likely to substantially 
B 
diminish its value. These are the disjunctive requirements. In the facts 
and circumstances-Of the instant appeal, all the Courts have found that 
constructions carried out by the tenants have the effect of altering the 
-'· 
form and structure of the accommodation. [I2B-C; F) 
The suit which was filed on the ground that there were material c 
alterations simpliciter under section 3(I)(c) of the Act of 1947 would 
continue to be valid after the coming into operation of Act of 1972 in 
view of clause (s) of Sub-section (2) of section 43 thereof. This is the 
consequence of the language used. Neither the Act of 1947, nor the Act 
of 1972 gives any right to the landlord. The landlord's right to ~vict 
tenant is guided by ~he Transfer of Property Act. The Act of 1947 gives 
D 
protection to !he tenants under certain conditions and at the time when 
_,, 
the suit was filed, the rights of the parties had been crystallised. 011-lhe 
facts as alleged and proved and found by the Court, the tenants were 
liable to be evicted. The question of temporary rights in favour of the 
landlord does not arise. [14H; ISA-CJ 
E 
The rights of the parties must be determined in accordance with 
the provisions of law. What justice of the case entails and what is just, 
due and the law says, is to be given to each one whether being a landlord 
or a tenant. "The Judg/is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a 
knight-errant roaming aVwiO in pm:snit of his own ideal of beauty or of 
- goodness" (Ca~dozo-The Nature of the Judicial process p,age 141). If F 
.. 
that is the position on the date when the rights crystallised and in view 
of clause (s) of section 43 (2) of the Act of J972, those rights will 
continue as if tliey were under the old Act. The right had accrued to the 
landlord to get the eviction even if the alteration had not in any way 
affected or diminished th~ value of the premises. That righ

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