This is an appeal filed at the behest of the landlord,
whose plea for eviction against the respondent-tenant was turned
down, by the impugned order dated 03.12.2007, passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as `the JUDGMENT High Court'). It is essential to record, that eviction at the
behest of the appellant was sought under Section 20(2)(c) of the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1972 Act').
Section 20(2)(c) aforementioned of the 1972 Act is being extracted
hereunder:
“20(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a
building after the determination of his tenancy may
be instituted on one or more of the following
grounds, namely:
(c) that the tenant has without the permission in
writing of the landlord made or permitted to be
made any such construction or structural alteration
in the building as is likely to diminish its value
or utility or to disfigure it.”
In order to succeed under the provision extracted above,
a landlord must establish, firstly, that the tenant without the
permission of the landlord, had effected construction or structural
alteration in the rented building. The fulfilment of the first
condition would not per se, entitle a landlord, the right to evict
the tenant. In addition to the aforesaid pre-requisite, it is
essential for a landlord to further establish, either that, the
said construction or structural alteration had diminished the value
of the building, or that, it had diminished the utility of the
building, or that, it had disfigured the building.
The building leased out by the appellant to the respondent is a house.JUDGMENTIn the lease deed executed between the
parties on 01.03.1987, the description of the rented premises, was
depicted as under:
“Description of the rented shop
The shop is located in a house Plot No.
C-21/3B-4-1 Mohalla Maldahiya, Varanasi and
whose boundary is as under:-
East - House No.C-21/3B-4
A shop in possession of Smt.Subhagi
Devi
West - A portion of House No.C-21/3 in
occupation of the second party
North - Govt. Road
South - Portion of the House No.C-21/3B
in possession of the Second
Party”
A perusal of the above description reveals, that there were
shops/houses on three sides of the rented shop. Naturally,
therefore, the Government Road was on the side facing the
verandah, in front of the shop.
The allegation made by the appellant-landlord, against
the respondent-tenant, on the subject of unauthorised
construction/structural alteration is to the effect, that the
shifting of the shutter affixed on the shop, had resulted in a
structural alteration of the shop, which at the time of the lease
was 22 ft.x11½ ft. By removing the aforesaid shutter, and by
installing the said shutter at the opposite end of the verandah,
the dimensions of the shop had been increased to 30ft.x11½ ft. It
is in the background of the aforementioned understanding of the
unauthorised construction/structural alteration, that we must JUDGMENT further determine, whether by the aforesaid action of the
respondent, he had diminished the value of the premises, and/or had
diminished the utility of the building, and/or had disfigured it?
A positive finding on any of the above, would make out a claim, for
the appellant-landlord under Section 20(2)(c) of the 1972 Act.
There is no material on the record of this case, to
establish any of the aforementioned ingredients. It is in the
aforesaid circumstances, that we may venture to determine a finding
on the said issues, at our own. Undoubtedly, the shop premises
leased out by the appellant to the respondent originally measured
22ft.x11½ ft. Even if the dimensions of the shop have been
increased to 30 ft.x11½ ft., it is not possible for us to record a
conclusion, that the value of the shop has been decreased, nor the
utility of the shop has been reduced. On the contrary, by
increasing the dimensions of the shop, it may legitimately be
concluded, that its value and utility had been enhanced. The only
remaining question is, whether by removing the shutter from its
existing location, and by installing it at the opposite end of the
verandah, the respondent has disfigured the premises? In our
considered view, there is no material on the record of this case,
to arrive at such a finding.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, it is not possible for
us to accept, that the appellant-landlord, has been able to
establish, the ingredients of the ground of eviction, envisaged in
Section 20(2)(c) of the 1972 Act.
It is also relevant to notice, that the action of the
respondent-tenant, in shifting the shutter (details whereof have JUDGMENT already been narrated above), had resulted in the issuance of a
show cause notice to the rival parties herein, by the Varanasi
Development Authority (on 20.08.1991). The appellant-landlord
replied to the same pleading innocence, by asserting that the
shifting of the shutter, was the handiwork of the respondent-
tenant. The respondent-tenant in his reply (dated 30.08.1991) to
the show cause notice, sought compounding of the action. In the
appellate proceedings, arising out of the above show cause notice,
the appellant-landlord was exonerated from the imposition of any
penalty. The appellate authority, however, determined the issue
against the respondent-tenant. The respondent-tenant had filed
Writ Petition No.1995 of 1996, before the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad (before its Lucknow Bench) to assail the order passed
in the aforementioned apellate proceedings. The same is stated to
be pending before the High Court. In our considered view, not only
that the above proceeding does not create any right of eviction,
rather the appellant-landlord having been exonerated, cannot claim
any prejudice on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the
Varanasi Development Authority. We are, therefore, not in a
position to accept, the contention advanced on behalf of the
appellant-landlord, that the respondent-tenant was liable to be
evicted, because of the proceedings initiated by the Varanasi
Development Authority.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in
the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.