VISHWANATH PRASAD JAISWAL VERSUS SATYA NARAIN SHARMA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.1002 OF 2010

VISHWANATH PRASAD JAISWAL …….APPELLANT

VERSUS

SATYA NARAIN SHARMA ……RESPONDENT

The allegation made by the appellant-landlord, against the respondent-tenant, on the subject of unauthorized 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.x11½ 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 30 ft.x11½ 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.x11½ ft. Even if the dimensions of the shop have been increased to 30 ft.x11½ 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….read more