Page 1

1

   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

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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.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 30ft.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

Page 4

4

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.

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

Page 5

5

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.