OM PAL versus ANAND SWARUP (DEAD BY LRS.)

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 04-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

OM PAL 
v. 
A 
ANAND SWARUP (DEAD BY LRS.) 
OCTOBER 4, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ. ANDS. NATARAJAN,.J.] 
B 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 
1949: Section 
13(2)(iii)-'Acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of 
the building'-lnterpretation of~landlord-When entitled to obtain 
order of eviction-The construction by the tenant must not only be one 
effecting or diminishing value of utility of building but also impairment 
must be of a material nature. 
· 
C 
The appellant had taken on lease a room from the respondent for 
running a dry-cleaning shop. The appellant later put up a parchhati in 
the shop for storing clothes. The respondent-l:indlord &'ought evictionof 
the tenant under section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent 
D 
Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground that the construction of the 
parchhati was an act causing material impairment to the building. Both 
the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority upheld the contention 
of the respondent. The High Court, in revision, affirmed their findings. 
Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
E 
(i) the respondent had not adduced any evidence, although the burden 
of proof was on him, to show that by fixing the parchhati the building 
had been materially impaired so as to aff!'Ct the value or utility of the 
building in any manner; (ii) the Rent Controller and the Appellate 
Authority had rendered their findings against the appellant without any 
basis for it; (Iii) the High Court had failed to comprehend section 
F 
13(2)(iii) in its proper perspective; and (iv) the High Court i1ad erred in 
treating the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority 
as pure findings of fact whereas they were findings on a mixed question 
oflaw and fact. 
· Allowing the appeal, it was, 
G 
HELD: (I) It is not every construction or alteration that 
would result in material impairment to the value or the utility of the 
building. [JcJ6E] 
--
(2) In order to attract s. 13(2)(iii) the construction must not only 
H 
A 
B 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
be one affecting or diminishing the value or utility of the building but 
such Impairment must be of a material nature i.e. of a substantial and 
significant nature. [396E-F) 
(3) When·a construction is alleged to materially impair the value 
'or utility of a building, the construction should be of such a nature as to 
substantially diminish the value of the building either from the commer-
cial and monetary .Point of view or from the utilitarian aspect of the 
building. [396G-H:; 397A] ··· 
(4) The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had 
rendered their findings without any basis for it, and the High Court 
erred in accepting those findings without applying the correct principles 
C 
of law underlying section 13(2)(iii). [397B) . . . 
. 
Govindaswamy Naidu v. Pushpalammal, AIR 1952 Mad 181; 
'Smt. Savitri Devi v. U.S. Bajpai, AIR 1956 Nagpur 60; Charan Singh v. 
Shrimati Ananthi & Ors., [1966) 6 PLR 780; G. Natarajan v. 
O P. Thandavarayan, [1969) RCJ 733; Shri Anup Chand & Ors. v. Shri 
Trilok Singh, [1977] 1 RCJ 752; Gobind Ram v. Smt. Kaushalya Rani 
& Ors., [1983] 1RCJ295; Om Prakash v. Amar Singh & Ors., [1987] 1 
SCC 458 and Brijendra Nath Bhargava & .Anr. v. Harsh Wardhan & 
Ors., [1988] 1SCC454, referred to. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2471 
of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.80 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 292 of 1976. 
F 
Sultan Singh and T .L. Garg for the Appellant. 
0 
Harbans Lal, S.M. Ashri and Ashok Mahajan for the Res· 
pondent. 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
NATARAJAN, J. In this appeal by special leave by a tenanf 
against the dismissal of his Revision under Section 15(5) of the East 
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 
the 'Act') by the High Court, what falls for consideration is the 
manner of construing the words "acts as are likely to impair materially 
H 
the value or utility of the building" occurring in Section 13(2)(iii) of 
the Act. 
-;,i:;;; 
) ' 
~ i'. 
. .._. ''.)''• 
OM PAL v. ANAND SWARUP [NATARAJAN, J.] 
393 
A parchhati put up by the tenant/appellant in a shop taken on 
A 
lease by him for running a Dry Cleaning laundry has been construed by 
the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as an act causing 
material impairment to the building and the High Court has affirmed 
their find

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