OM PRAKASH versus AMAR SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 968 · Decided: 09-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
A 
AMAR SINGH & ANR. 
JANUARY 9, !987 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952-Section 14--Tena-
~ 
nts--Eviction of-Construction or alteration must be of such nature 
and character as to materially alter the accommodation. 
c 
Words & Phrases-'Altered'-'Material/y'-meaning of. 
'f 
The tenanted premises was let out to the appellant for running a 
Dal and Oil Mill- The respondents purchased the building and a year ... 
later filed a suit for eviction, inter alia, alleging that the appellant had 
D made material alterations in the tenanted premises without their con-
sent causing substantial damages to it_ The disputed construction in-
duded a partition wall in a ball converting the same into two portions 
and tin sheds shown by letters ABHG and CDGH. 
The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the partition wall in 
E the ball did not constitute material alteration and that the tin shed 
marked by letters ABHG bad been constructed with the consent of the 
-"' 
erstwhile landlords but the tin shed marked with letters CDGH bad 
been constructed subseQuently without respondents' consent, which 
materially altered the accommodation. 
F 
On appeal, the Additional Civil Judge found that none of the 
constructions constituted material alterations. 
~
But on second appeal, the High Court held that the tin shed 
·~
indicated by letters CDGH as well as the partition wall made in the 
ball converting the same into two rooms, constituted material alteration 
G as contemplated by s.14(c) of the U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 
1952, justifying the eviction of the tenant. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD: (I) The order of the High Court is set aside and the Judg-
} 
H ment and decree of the First Appellate Court are restored. [978A] 
968 
-t 
).. 
OM PRAKASH v. AMAR SINGH 
969 
(2) The U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952 does not permit 
a landlord to file suit for evicition of a tenant without obtaining pennis- . A 
sion of the District Magistrate but if the tenant, without the landlord's 
permission made or permitted to make construction which in the opi-
nion of the Court has materially altered the accommodation or which is 
likely to diminish its value substantially, the landlord is free to file suit 
for tenant's eviction without obtaining permission of the District 
B 
Magistrate. [9738-C] 
(3) Necessary facts which should be established by the landlord 
for obtaining a decree against the tenant under the said provision are 
that (i) the tenant has made construction; (ii) such constructions have 
been made without the consent of the landlord; and (iii) constructions, 
so made have materially altered the accommodation. These three condi-
C 
tions are cumulative in nature, each 1'.0e of them is necessary to be 
established before a decree for eviction can be passed against the 
tenant. [973D-F] 
(4) The Act does not define either the word 'materially' or the 
[) 
word 'altered'. The expression 'materially altered' means "a substan-
tial change in the character form and the structure of the building 
without destroying its identity". It means that the nature and the 
character of change or alteration of the building must be of essential 
and substantial nature. [973F; 974A-B] 
Concise Oxford Dictionary; Words and Phrases (Permanent Edi-
tion) and Babu Manmohan Das Shah & Ors. v. Bishun Das, [1967] I 
SCR 836, referred to. 
(5) In determining the question the Court must address itself to 
the nature, character of the constructions and the extent to which the 
changes in the front and structure -of the accommodation are made 
having regard to the purpose for which the accommodation may have 
been let out to the tenant. [974D-E] 
E 
F 
(6) The material alterations contemplate change of substantial 
nature affecting the fonn and character of the building. Many a time G 
tenants make minor constructions and alterations for the convenient 
~ 
use of the tenanted accommodation. The Legislature does not provide 
for their eviction, for such alterations. [974E-F] 
(7) Construction of a Chabutra, Almirah, opening of a window or 
closing a verandah by temporary structure or replacing of a damaged 
H 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1987] 1 S.C.R. 
A roof which may he leaking or placing partition in a room or making 
similar minor alterations for the convenient use of the accommodation 
do not materially alter the building as in spite of such constructions the 
front and stru

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