WARYAM SINGH versus BALDEV SINGH

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 31-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. . ' 
... 
, 
I 
WARYAM SINGH 
A 
v. 
BALDEV SINGH 
OCTOBER 3 I, 2002 
[S.N. VARIA VA AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Section 13(2) (iii)- C 
Material alteration-Landlord letting out shop with verandah-Tenant covering 
the verandah-Eviction Petition on ground of material alteration-Landlord 
leading no evidence on material itnpair111ent of value and utility of the shop--
Rent Controller dismissing the petition-Appellate Court allowing the same-
High Court without disturbing finding of fact that tenant made alteration, held 
that alteration not materially impairing value and utility of shop thus, eviction D 
decree cozild not be passed-On appeal held, since there is no proof of material 
impairment in value or utility of shop, order of High Court upheld 
Appellant-landlord let out a shop with a verandah to respondent-
tenant. Respondent-tenant altered the verandah by enclosing it and putting 
a rolling shutter in the front without the consent of appellant-landlord. E 
Appellant-landlord filed eviction petition. Rent Controller dismissed the 
petition as the appellant-landlord could not prove that respondent-tenant 
made any additions/alterations and also that the alterations made did not 
impair the value and utility of the shop. First Appellate Court held that 
respondent-tenant made additions/alterations which materially impaired F 
the value and utility of the shop. Aggrieved, respondent filed a revision. 
High Court di<I not disturb the finding of fact that respondent-landlord 
made alteration but held that the alteration made did not materially impair 
the value and utility of the shop and allowed the revision. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. An order for eviction can be passed only ifthe landlord 
proves that the tenant had carried out the construction; that the same was 
without the consent of the landlord; and that the value or utility had been 
9 
G 
H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A materially impaired. In the instant case, first Appellant Court, concluded 
on facts that respondent had carried out alteration by enclosing the 
verandah. On facts, it has been held that this has been done without the 
consent of appellant. Revisional Court was correct in not interfering with 
the findings of fact that respondent made alteration. Thus there is no 
B reason to take a different view on a question of fact. (15-H; 16-A( 
1.2. On the question of material impairment of value or utility of 
the shop appellant lead no evidence at all. It cannot be said that no 
evidence was re.quired to be lead as it has to be inferred that the value or 
utility had been diminished. In the case of a shop, particularly in a business 
C locality, the area of the shop gets increased by the verandah getting 
enclosed. This would increase the value and utility of the shop. Further, 
there is no proof, that free flow of light and air has been stopped. On the 
contrary, by putting up a rolling shutter in the front the flow of light and 
air is increased. Thus in the absence of any proof of material impairment 
in value or utility of the shop, High Court was right in concluding that no 
D decree for eviction could be passed and therefore, there is no reason to 
interfere with the judgment of the High Court. [16-B-D) 
Om Prakash v. Amar Singh, [1987) 1 SCC 458, relied on. 
Dewan Chand v. Babu Ram, (1980) 2 RCJ 615 and Vipin Kumar v. 
E Roshal Lal Anand, [1993) 2 sec 614, distinguished. 
Narain Singh v. Bakson Laboratories, (1981) CLJ (Civil) 414, 
disapproved. 
Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries, [1996) 2 SCC 626; 
F Kartar Singh v. Kesar Singh and Anr., (1980) 2 RCJ l; Brijendra Nath 
Bhargava v. Harsh Wardhan, (1988) 1 SCC 454 and Om Pal v. Anand 
Swarup, [1988[ 4 SCC 545, referred to. 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6942 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.2000 of the Punjab and 
J-laryana High Court in C.R. Nos. l 838 of 1989. 
Sudhir Walia and Mahlnder Singh Dahiya, for the Appellant. 
Dabasis Misra, for the Respondent. 
i 
·-
. 
.... 
. ' 
• 
WARY AM SINGH v. BALDEV SINGH [S.N. VARIAVA. J.] 
J J 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 14th 
March, 2000. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 
A 
B 
The Appellant, who is a landlord of the concerned premises, filed 
Eviction Petition on two grounds, namely

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