VISHWANATH PRASAD JAISWAL VERSUS SATYA NARAIN SHARMA : Supreme Court - Section 20(2)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL No.1002 OF 2010 Judgment Date: Dec 04, 2014
Non-reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.1002 OF 2010
VISHWANATH PRASAD JAISWAL .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
SATYA NARAIN SHARMA ......RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
J.S.KHEHAR, J.
This is an appeal filed at the behest of the landlord,
whose plea for eviction against the respondent-tenant was turned down, by
the impugned order dated 03.12.2007, passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as `the High Court'). It is essential
to record, that eviction at the behest of the appellant was sought under
Section 20(2)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1972
Act'). Section 20(2)(c) aforementioned of the 1972 Act is being extracted
hereunder:
"20(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the
determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the
following grounds, namely:
(a) XXX XXX XXX
(b) XXX XXX XXX
(c) that the tenant has without the permission in writing of the
landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural
alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or
to disfigure it."
In order to succeed under the provision extracted above, a
landlord must establish, firstly, that the tenant without the permission of
the landlord, had effected construction or structural alteration in the
rented building. The fulfilment of the first condition would not per se,
entitle a landlord, the right to evict the tenant. In addition to the
aforesaid pre-requisite, it is essential for a landlord to further
establish, either that, the said construction or structural alteration had
diminished the value of the building, or that, it had diminished the
utility of the building, or that, it had disfigured the building.
The building leased out by the appellant to the respondent
is a house. In the lease deed executed between the parties on 01.03.1987,
the description of the rented premises, was depicted as under:
"Description of the rented shop
The shop is located in a house Plot No. C-
21/3B-4-1 Mohalla Maldahiya, Varanasi and whose boundary is
as under:-
East - House No.C-21/3B-4
A shop in possession of Smt.Subhagi
Devi
West - A portion of House No.C-21/3 in
occupation of the second party
North - Govt. Road
South - Portion of the House No.C-21/3B
in possession of the Second
Party"
A perusal of the above description reveals, that there were shops/houses on
three sides of the rented shop. Naturally, therefore, the Government Road
was on the side facing the verandah, in front of the shop.
The allegation made by the appellant-landlord, against the
respondent-tenant, on the subject of unauthorised construction/structural
alteration is to the effect, that the shifting of the shutter affixed on
the shop, had resulted in a structural alteration of the shop, which at the
time of the lease was 22 ft.x11 ft. By removing the aforesaid shutter, and
by installing the said shutter at the opposite end of the verandah, the
dimensions of the shop had been increased to 30ft.x11 ft. It is in the
background of the aforementioned understanding of the unauthorised
construction/structural alteration, that we must further determine, whether
by the aforesaid action of the respondent, he had diminished the value of
the premises, and/or had diminished the utility of the building, and/or had
disfigured it? A positive finding on any of the above, would make out a
claim, for the appellant-landlord under Section 20(2)(c) of the 1972 Act.
There is no material on the record of this case, to
establish any of the aforementioned ingredients. It is in the aforesaid
circumstances, that we may venture to determine a finding on the said
issues, at our own. Undoubtedly, the shop premises leased out by the
appellant to the respondent originally measured 22ft.x11 ft. Even if the
dimensions of the shop have been increased to 30 ft.x11 ft., it is not
possible for us to record a conclusion, that the value of the shop has been
decreased, nor the utility of the shop has been reduced. On the contrary,
by increasing the dimensions of the shop, it may legitimately be concluded,
that its value and utility had been enhanced. The only remaining question
is, whether by removing the shutter from its existing location, and by
installing it at the opposite end of the verandah, the respondent has
disfigured the premises? In our considered view, there is no material on
the record of this case, to arrive at such a finding.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, it is not possible for us
to accept, that the appellant-landlord, has been able to establish, the
ingredients of the ground of eviction, envisaged in Section 20(2)(c) of the
1972 Act.
It is also relevant to notice, that the action of the
respondent-tenant, in shifting the shutter (details whereof have already
been narrated above), had resulted in the issuance of a show cause notice
to the rival parties herein, by the Varanasi Development Authority (on
20.08.1991). The appellant-landlord replied to the same pleading innocence,
by asserting that the shifting of the shutter, was the handiwork of the
respondent-tenant. The respondent-tenant in his reply (dated 30.08.1991) to
the show cause notice, sought compounding of the action. In the appellate
proceedings, arising out of the above show cause notice, the appellant-
landlord was exonerated from the imposition of any penalty. The appellate
authority, however, determined the issue against the respondent-tenant.
The respondent-tenant had filed Writ Petition No.1995 of 1996, before the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (before its Lucknow Bench) to assail
the order passed in the aforementioned apellate proceedings. The same is
stated to be pending before the High Court. In our considered view, not
only that the above proceeding does not create any right of eviction,
rather the appellant-landlord having been exonerated, cannot claim any
prejudice on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the Varanasi
Development Authority. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept, the
contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-landlord, that the
respondent-tenant was liable to be evicted, because of the proceedings
initiated by the Varanasi Development Authority.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in
the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
...........................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
...........................J.
(SHIVA
KIRTI SINGH)
..........................J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 4, 2014.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now