SHANTHI TARACHAND Vs. C S NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. Respondent No.1-landlord filed R.C. No.272 of 1988 on the file of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking eviction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenant from the schedule, premises on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of waste which materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller is set out as hereunder: The petitioner-landlord is the owner of the premises bearing No.108/6, Park Lane, Secunderabad which consists of ground floor and first floor. Late Sri Tarachand, husband of the tenant, has obtained premises on rent from the landlord's grandfather through a letter dated 3-11-1972 intimating the tenant about the execution of the lease deed and also the attornment of the premises in favour of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner became the landlord of the scheduled premises. The tenants-respondents before the learned Rent Controller are the legal representatives of late Tarachand and Premchand. It is the case of the landlord-petitioner that the tenant has made material alterations in the schedule property unauthorisedly and without consent of the petitioner which has impaired the utility of the building. The petition was resisted on the ground that the tenant has obtained prior permission to make alterations with a view to start a hotel business in the premises and that in fact the tenant has improved the schedule premises by investing amounts and that the value of the property increased. The learned Rent Controller on a detailed enquiry based on the oral and documentary evidence found that there was no oral consent obtained by the tenant and Exs.C-1 to C-54 establishes that the tenant has made material alterations and committed acts of waste and thus impaired the utility of the building from the point of view of the landlord and ordered eviction. The tenant filed the appeal under Section 20 of the Act before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, who in turn confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority, the tenant has filed the present revision petition under Section 22 of the Act.

(2.) Ms. Anita Ahuja, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Rent Controller and the' learned Appellate Court and contended that they are unsustainable. It is her contention that the alterations made do not impair or diminish the value of the property but only enhance the real value of the suit schedule premises. It is her contention that mere alterations to the building to suit the convenience of the tenant for doing business cannot be said as material alterations. She placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sona Optics vs. Shyam Sunder Bhargava and others for the proposition that mere want of consent of the landlord for the change or addition does not constitute as an act of waste. She also brought to my notice the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gobind Ram vs. Smt. Kaushalya Rani and others. She also placed reliance on another judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Darshan Kumar vs. Kaka Ram. The aforementioned judgments have dealt with each case adverting to the nature of the alterations and ultimately held that each case has to be analysed to decide whether the alterations made by the tenant have impaired the material value or utility of the demised building.

(3.) Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that what was let out to the tenant was a house under Ex.P-1. Though Ex.P-1 does not mention the purpose for which it was let out it does not disclose that the premises was let out for commercial purpose or non-residential purpose. It is his contention that the alterations made will not leave the property in the same condition as it was let out. He further submitted that the impairment or alteration has to be viewed from the point of view of the landlord and not from the point of view of the tenant. He placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in M.S. Reddi vs. T.A.P.S. Raghavan for the proposition that any alteration or impairment of the building has to be viewed from the point of view of the landlord and that should constitute a valid ground for tenant's eviction. This legal proposition was affirmed by the Apex Court in Gurbachan Singh vs. Shivalak Rubber Industries. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the expressions "impair materially" and "value". The Apex Court has also held that ultimately the impairment or deterioration of the building has to be judged from the point of view of the landlord and not from the point of view of the tenant or any one else. The Apex Court has held as follows: