LexM/S. BRITISH MOTOR CAR CO. versus MADAN LAL SAGGI (D) AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. BRITISH MOTOR CAR CO. A v. MADAN LAL SAGGI (D) AND ANR. NOVEMBER 19, 2004 [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] B East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 : S. J 3(2)(iii)-Additions and alterations by "tenant materially impairing value of the premises"-Tenant of/and and building-Constructing permanent C structure on the land without permission of landlord-Held, the three courts below have correctly applied the true test and on facts found that the sheds constructed by tenant amounted to an act materially impairing the value and utility of the premisses-Order of eviction upheld. Om Prakash v. Amar Singh and Ors., [1987) 1 SCC 458; Om Pal v. Swarup, (1988) 4 SCC 545; Wa1yam Singh v. Ba/dev Singh, [2003) 1 SCC 59; Gurbachan Singh and Anr. v. Shivalak Rubber Industries and Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 626 and Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand and Ors., (1993) 2 sec 614, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11001 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 5764 of 2000. S.M. Sarin and P.N. Puri for the Petitioner. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, M.A. Chinnasamy, Simran Mehta, Ms. Bamali Basak and Ms Shipra Ghose for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This is a desperate attempt on the part of the petitioner, who was unsuccessful throughout, to hold on to the premises of which he is the tenant. D E F G The petitioner is the tenant of land and building constructed upon a H 203 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A plot in Jalandhar. Sometime in the year 1967 the petitioner was inducted into the premises by a lease agreement dated 25.10.1967. The lease.agreement, inter alia, contained a clause which said, "that the lessees will not make any addition or alteration or change in the building during the period of tenancy". B c D E F The respondent-landlord moved a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the petitioner- tenant on two grounds, namely, (1) that the petitioner had not been paying the enhanced rent as per the terms of the agreement; and (2) that though the earlier the petitioner had made a temporary shed over the generator which was placed in the courtyard, the petitioner had now extended and made further construction of two pacca sheds without consent of the landlord in the courtyard and by constructing the sheds the petitioner had materially impaired the value and utility of he premises. The Rent Controller raised the following issues : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent? Whether the respondent has made additions and alternations without the consent of the petitioner and has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in question? Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by their own act and conduct as alleged? Whether the petitioner are debarred from demanding the access rent? Relief." After trial of the application, the Rent Controller answered the first issue in favour of the petitioner, With regard to the 2nd issue, the Rent G Controller held that the constructions made were of such nature as to materially impair the value and utility of the premises and an act which would amount to a ground for eviction under section l 3(2)(iii) of the Act. The Rent Controller decided the third issue in the favour of the petitioner H and held that the previous litigation pertained to a temporary shed covering ; ,_ BRITISH MOTOR CAR CO. v. M.L. SAGGI 205 the generator in which the finding had been that there was no material impairment of the value and utility of the premises. Although, the respondent- landlord had attempt to evict the petitioner-tenant for this reason, he had failed throughout in the litigation right up to this Court. The Rent Controller took the view that this did not prevent the landlord from moving again on the fresh cause of action. The appellate authority under the Act, after careful re-appreciation of the evidence on record completely affirmed the findings recorded on the issues by the Rent Controller. The appellate authority also took the view that the sheds constructed by the tenant are of permanent nature which could not be removed without doing damage to the building in question as they were embedded in the floor and also in the side wall; that by constructing the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.