OM PRAKASH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and decreeing the landlord's suit for eviction against the appellant.

(2.) The appellant has been tenant of Kothi No. 196 situated in Dholki Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Meerut Cantt. ever since 1961 on a rent of Rs. 93/- per mensem. The tenanted' premises was let out to the appellant for running a Dal and Oil Mill. The respondents purchased the building from the erstwhile owners in 1963, a year later, they filed a suit for appellant's eviction on a number of grounds including the ground that the appellant had made constructions materially altering the accommodation without their consent causing substantial damages to it. It is not necessary to refer to other grounds as the sole ground which survived for the decree of eviction relates to the material alterations made in the tenanted premises without obtaining the consent of the landlord. The disputed constructions include a partition wall in a hall converting the same into two portions and tin sheds shown by letters ABHG and CDGH. The trial Court held that the partition wall in the hall did not constitute material alteration, it further held that the tin shed marked 'by letters ABHG had been constructed by the appellant with the consent of the erstwhile landlords predecessor in interest of the respondents but the tin shed marked with letters CDGH had been constructed by the appellant subsequently without respondents' consent, which materially altered the accommodation and on that findings the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the Additional Civil Judge set aside the trial Court's order and dismissed the respondents' suit on the findings that none of the constructions constituted material alteration justifying appellant's eviction under S. 14(c), U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act 10 of 1952. On a second appeal made by the respondent a learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the first appellate Court on the findings that the tin shed indicated by the letters CDHS as well as the partition wall made in the hall converting the same into two rooms, constituted material alteration as contemplated by S. 14(c). Since the constructions had been made without permission of the respondent, the tenant was liable for eviction.

(3.) There is no dispute that the demised premises is subject to the provisions of the U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S. 14 of the Act imposes restriction on the landlords' right to file suit for eviction of a tenant from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds specified therein. Section 14(c) relevant for the purposes of this case reads as under: