SARDAR MAN SINGH Vs. GANGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for injunction against his tenant. The injunction claimed was for restraining the defendant from damaging the house or altering it materially or demolishing or destroying any portion of the tenant. There was a further relief for dama ges in the sum of Rs. 200/- for the loss that had already been caused to the plaintiff by demolition of a wall and digging up certain holes in the property. The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 150/- as damages and for the injunction claimed. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the view of the lower appellate Court that a tenant could use the accommodation let out in any manner he liked subject to his liability to restore it to the same condition in which it was let out, as and when he leaves the property, under clause (m) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act does not mean that a tenant can damage the property and say that he was under no liability to repair the damage so long as he continued in possession of the property. According to the lower appellate Court, the damage caused, if any, was minor. The lower appellate Court did not, however, find that the amount of damages awarded by the trial Court for restoring the property to its original condition was in any manner excessive. It was on the other band contended on behalf of the respondent that the suit was meant only to harass the tenant. In fact no damage was caused to the property for if any material damage had been caused to the property, the landlord was sure to have brought a suit for the tenant's ejectment rather than the present suit for injunction and damages. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I find that the injunction was issued by the trial Court on the ground that the demolition of the wall and digging of the holes amounted to a material alteration. If that was so, the injunction could not be granted for surely the plaintiff landlord could have sued for ejectment of the tenant on the ground and that would have been an efficacious relief. It was urged that the grant of injunction was barred by clause (h) of Section 41 because the landlord could surely have obtained an equally efficacious relief and proceeding for the tenant's ejectment if the allega tions made by him in the suit were correct. As to the damages awarded by the trial Court, I do not think that the lower appellate Court was right in taking the view that a tenant has a right to use the building as he chooses and if in the course of doing so, some darrage is caused thereto, he is liable to restore it only when he leaves the building. There may be causes and cases. If the landlord dies tot take notice of the damage caused during the occupation of the building and waits till the accommodation is vacated for its being restored to its original condition, clause (m) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act surely makes the tenant liable to restore the property to its original condi tion while leaving it. But that is rot to say that a landlord cannot have the damage repaired while the tenant is in occupation, to accept compensation in money for the damage caused, as in the present case. Dr. Cyan Piakash, however, argued that, under clause (o) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, k was open to a tenant to use the property to his best advantage so long as the Act done by the tenant was not destructive or permanently injurious to the building. Here again the clause does not authorise a tenant to cause damage to the budding. A tenant is required to take good care of the building and maintain it in a proper condition during the period of his possession and if he causes any damage, while clause (m) imposes on him a liability to restore the building to its original condition while leaving, clause (c) would surely make him liable for damages or even for forfeiture of the tenancy if he damages for destroys the property in such a manner as to be permanently injurious thereto. None of these conditions take away the landlord's right to obtain compensation for any minor damage caused to the building or to have the same repaired without disturbing the continu ance of the tenancy. It was not suggested that the amount of damages award ed by the trial Court was excessive. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and in place of the decree passed by the trial Court there shall be a decree only for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 150/- against the defendant with proportionate costs through out. .