CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Bas Deo Gupta vs Smt. Savitri Devi and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 10 July 2007 · Citation: (2007) 6 AWC 5975

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 20(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 35286 of 2002
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 391 words

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the records.

2.

The Petitioner is a tenant of a house situated in the city of Banda on rent @ Rs. 35 per month. He made material alterations in the tenement by covering the verandah into a room by enclosing it with a wall.

3.

The Respondents filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 3/93 for ejectment against the tenant, which was decreed in favour of the landlord on the ground of material alteration.

4.

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.1.1999 the Petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 10/99, which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 11.3.2002 holding that the courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the tenant holding that he had made material alteration which diminished the value of the tenement.

5.

Admittedly by enclosing the verandah and converting it into a room not only the utility of the building has diminished as verandah was a source of light and fresh air to entering rooms but enclosed the structural beauty of the building has been affected which has defaced its locality diminishing its value. Value may not mean only rise or fall in cost of the building. It also means other values also, e.g., if a tenant constructs a room in the lawn the value of the room may add to the cost of the building but may reduce the value due to disfigured of the building and the utility of the lawn. Similarly enclosing the verandah by wall and constructing it into a room also disfigures the building and reduces its value and utility for the landlord. Converting verandah into a room in my opinion is a material alteration. It is for this reason the Legislature in its wisdom has been cautious to provide that no material alteration is to be made by the tenant by which the value of the tenement is reduced by disfigure by the construction/material alteration made by the tenant.

6.

The courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the tenant that he made material alteration.

7.

The counsel for the Petitioner could not show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

8.

For the reasons stated above, it is not a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.