Banarsi Dass vs Sunder Dass and another

Mehar Singh, C.J.—The applicant-landlord let two shops in dispute to the two respondents, Sunder Das and Bodh Raj, sometime in 1958. It is an admitted case on both sides that according to the rent-note the tenants were given a right to repair the shops at their own expense.

The tenants demolished the front verandah of the shops and the western wall of the shops of which new foundation was dug, at least one other wall was reconstructed, and of the roofs of the two shops, one was replaced and the other was partly replaced.

The applicant-landlord claimed eviction of the respondents u/s 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949). on the ground ''that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materialy the value or utility of the building or rented land''. The authorities under the Act have come to the conclusion that this is a case of repairs in accordance with the contract of tenancy between the parties and the effect of the repairs carried out by the respondents has been rather to enhance the value and utility of the shops and not in any way to materially impair the same. So the application of the applicant-landlord seeking eviction of the respondents has been dismissed.

This is a peculiar case in which, although the contract of tenancy between the parties provides for a right to the tenants to repair the demised shops at their own cost the tenants-respondents have actually done such construction, as has already been described above, that it is much more than can be brought within the meaning and scope of the word ''repairs''. It is a case of almost reconstruction of the two demised shops. Practically three fourth portion of the shops has been reconstructed and no more than two or three old walls have been retained to complete the building, the rest being an entirely new construction. The verandah was totally demolished, the western wall was so demolished that even a new foundation had to be laid before it could be raised, one roof was completely removed, and at least one or two other walls were completely removed. The other roof was partly reconstructed. This, in my opinion is not a case of repairs, and, I would, say, not even a case of extensive repairs. It is a case almost of reconstruction of the shops. There was an allegation on the side of the applicant that by the act of the respondents the area in his ownership, so far as the demised shops are concerned, has been reduced, but no satisfactory evidence has been brought in support of this allegation. The fact, however remains that at least three-fourth portion of the demised shops has been reconstructed and, as I have already said, in my opinion, this is not what may be called ''repairs'' in the terms of the contract of tenancy between the parties, but it is a ease of almost reconstruction of the demised shops.

On the conclusion above, the question that arises for consideration is whether the ground of eviction as in section 13(2)(iii) of East Punjab Act 3 of 1949 is attracted to this case ? The requirement of the ground is that such acts of the tenant be proved as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land in this case the demised shops. If I understand this right. it has refernce to the demised property as let. It there are acts of the tenant which are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the demised porperty as let, this ground would be attracted. Now. if a demised property is wholly or substantially reconstructed by a tenant, it is quite likely that instead of its value or utility being materially impaired, the same may be enhanced by such reconstruction. By this device, however, the tenant cannot escape eviction on the ground as in section 13(2)(iii) of East Punjab Act 3 of 1949. If his acts are such that the original demised premises have practically ceased to exist and in their place almost a new building has come into being, then what was let by the landlord to him has been materially destroyed by his acts and the value or utility of the demised property as let has in such a case, been materially affected. It is in this approach that I consider that the ground in section 13(2)(iii) of Bast Punjab Act 3 of 1949 has been proved in this case, and the authorities below were not right in denying relief to the applicant-landlord The tenants-respondents in the present case have so acted as to substantially reconstruct the demised shops, although perhaps in the same shape as the original shape of the demised shops, but this act of theirs goes beyond the contract between the parties for repairs of the demised shops. Since they have, in substance, destroyed the original entity of the shops, they have done acts which, to my mind have impaired materially not only the utility but also the value of the demised shops as let at the time the contract of tenancy WAS entered into between the parties.

In consequence, this revision application of the applicant-landlord is accepted, the orders of the authorities below are set aside, and the eviction of the respondents from the demised shops is ordered with costs throughout, counsel''s fee in this revision application being Rs. 60/-.