PRATAP NARAIN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Allhabad High Court rendered in exercise of jurisidiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in proceedings arising out of the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction from the suit premises. The suit was filed in 1981. The respondent moved an application for amendment in 1986 to add the additional ground that the tenant having made strctural changes in the building, he was liable to eviction under Section 20(2) (c) of Act 13 of 1972. The amendment was allwed. The trial Court found that there were no arrears of rent and consequently the suit for recovery of rent and compensation was dismissed. But it found that the appellant had made certain structural changes, therefore, he was liable to eviction. The order was set aside by the District Judge in revision as the respondent having admitted that the alterations were made on or before 1968 and when the respondent issued a notice in 1970 and the appellant gave assuarance that he would not make any further construction or committ any wrongul act, no proceedings were taken against him, it amounted to condoning the act of making structural changes without obtaining his consent. This order was challenged by the landlord in writ petition. The order was set aside as the provision of law being clare that any alteration or changes under Section 20(2)(c) could be made only with the consent of the landlord, the revising authority committed an error of law in allowing the appeal on inference that the respondent was precluded from seeking eviction of the appellant on ground of structural changes.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the order passed by the High Court cannot be maintained as it having been found that the tenant had made structural changes as far back as 1968 and the landlord having issued a notice in 1970. Whereafter the landlord did not file any suit for eviction on the assurance given by the tenant, it would be deemed that it amounted to a written consent at least from 1970. The learned counsel urged that it was not disputed that the structural changes included construction of a latrine in the ground floor which was used by the landlord himself, therefore, the expression 'without the consent of the landlord' should be construed liberally so as to advance the purposes of enactment and consequently the suit of the landlord was liable to be dismissed on this ground. The learned counsel further submitted that in any case even if it is accepted that the tenant had made structural chages, the suit could not be decreed unless there was a finding that the construction has resulted in diminishing the value of the building. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi v. S. B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, (1968) 2 SCR 548 and urged that in view of the clear provisions of the law that the written consent of the landlord was necessary, the plea of waiver could not be set up, therefore, the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the revising authority and decreeing the suit of the landlord.