RAM KRISHNA DAS Vs. KRISHNA DAS AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H.C.Mital

(2.) BOTH the parties are real brothers. The revisionist has been a tenant of the plaintiff of a building in which the business of commission agency is carried on. The accommodation has also a big hall, being used as a godown. In the year 1989 the piaintiff filed a suit against the revisionist with the allegation that he had without any permission in writing in the godown has constructed a room and latrine after taking sewer and water connections and that the floor of the godown has also been damaged and thereby the value and utility of the accommodation has been diminished and it has also been disfigured. On behalf of the revisionist it was alleged in the written statement that with the oral consent of the plaintiff this construction was made, which was absolutely temporary and can be removed at any moment without leaving any trace of it; that neither the utility and value has been reduced nor it has disfigured and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned court below, however, held in favour of the plaintiff, hence this revision.

(3.) IT is apparent that the provision regarding construction in the building which may materially alter the accommodation or cause structural alteration in the building as is likely to substantially diminish its value are common in both the aforesaid provisions and, therefore, the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case though pertaining to Section 14 (c) of the U. P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1952 would also be applicable to the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In that case their Lordships specifically laid down as under : "The nature of constructions, whether they are permanent or temporary, is a relevant consideration in determining the question of 'material alteration'. A permanent construction tends to make changes in the accommodation on a permanent basis, while a temporary construction is on temporary basis which do not ordinarily affect the form or structure of the building, as it can easily be removed without causing any damage to the building. IT is, therefore, necessary that the alieged construction must be of a permanent character. In the present case the learned court below has not given any finding that the alleged construction is that of a permanent nature. ITs finding is only that the tenant has made construction without the written permission of the landlord and as a result of which it has diminished the utility of the accommodation.