SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. NABEESATH BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners / landlords filed R.C.P. No. 4 of 1992 under S.11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965 for eviction of the respondents / tenants. The Rent Control Court found that there was no landlord - tenant relationship and that the petitioners were not able to prove that there is alteration of the building so as to effect eviction under S.11(4)(ii). The Appellate Authority found that earlier in R.C.P. No. 187 of 1983 with regard to the same building, eviction was ordered on the ground of arrears of rent and that finding was not challenged. The landlord - tenant relationship was found in that case. Therefore, the Appellate Authority held that finding of the Rent Control Court that there is no landlord - tenant relationship cannot be accepted. We agree with the above finding of the Appellate Authority. However, with regard to the finding on the ground of S.11(2)(b), the Appellate Authority agreed with the Rent Control Court that alterations made by the tenants enhanced the value of the building and therefore, they cannot be evicted under S.11(4)(ii).

(2.) In this connection we refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh and another v. Shivalak Rubber Industries and others ( AIR 1996 SC 3057 ). In that case Court considered S.13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949). As per S.13(2)(iii) of the above Act if the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land, eviction can be ordered. The Supreme Court also held that the word "to impair materially" means to diminish in quality, strength or value substantially. The argument put forward by the tenant was that because of the improvements made by him the value was improved substantially and therefore, S.13(2)(3) cannot be used. The Supreme Court reversed the view of the High Court and held that the decrease or deterioration, in other words the impairment of the worth and usefulness or the value and utility of the building or rented land, has to be judged and determined from the point of view of the landlord and not of the tenant or anyone else. In that decision, the Supreme Court held as follows:

(3.) In Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand (1993 (3) JT (SC) 171) also same view was taken by the Apex Court. Here, even against the injunction order from the court, the tenants had done everything without the consent of the landlords and the building has been completely altered. According to the landlord the value of the building has been decreased even though according to an outsider value might have been increased. The Court agreed with the landlords' contentions and therefore, allowed petition and eviction was ordered under S.11(4)(ii). Unlike minor alterations which will not diminish the value of the building, a tenant is not entitled to change or alter the building and structure completely and act as if he is the owner. Here alterations made by the tenants are not disputed. But it is contended that the value has only increased and not decreased. But such alterations changing the flooring, walls, doors and roof tantamount to reconstruction of the building. In fact, a new structure has been built in the place of the old tenanted building and tenants have gone beyond their rights as tenants and acted as though they are the owners themselves. As held by the Apex Court, looked from the view point of the landlords, the value of the building has diminished, though in the opinion of others, value has only enhanced. According to us, having regard to the material alterations effected by the tenants herein, the landlord is fully justified in thinking that the tenants have transgressed the limits provided under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. In the above view, we are of the opinion that ingredients of S.11(4)(ii) are satisfied and tenants are liable to be evicted from the building.