Disjunctive reading of tenant alteration clause confirms eviction where structural changes materially alter premises or reduce value.

Section 3(1)(c) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 was read disjunctively: a tenant's construction is actionable if it either materially alters the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value. The Court held that the word "or" carries its ordinary meaning and creates two alternative grounds, so both conditions need not coexist. On the facts, lowering the floor, changing the door and staircase levels, and altering the chabutra were structural changes affecting the form of the premises and amounted to material alterations. The landlord could therefore maintain the eviction suit without District Magistrate's permission, and eviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 3(1)(c) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 is to be read disjunctively so that a tenant's construction is actionable if it materially alters the accommodation or if it is likely substantially to diminish its value; (ii) whether the alterations made by the tenant in the present case amounted to material alterations within that provision.

Issue (i): Whether section 3(1)(c) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 is to be read disjunctively so that a tenant's construction is actionable if it materially alters the accommodation or if it is likely substantially to diminish its value.

Analysis: The provision was held to be plain and unambiguous. The word "or" was given its ordinary meaning, and the clause was understood as creating two alternative grounds. A landlord could sue without the District Magistrate's permission if the tenant made a construction that either materially altered the accommodation or was likely substantially to diminish its value. Reading "or" as "and" would wrongly require both elements to coexist and would defeat the legislative scheme.

Conclusion: The provision is disjunctive. Proof of either material alteration or likely substantial diminution in value is sufficient.

Issue (ii): Whether the alterations made by the tenant in the present case amounted to material alterations within that provision.

Analysis: The alterations consisted of lowering the floor level, modifying the door level, altering the staircase, and lowering the chabutra to match the new floor. These changes affected the form and structure of the premises and gave them a new face. Material alterations were not confined to changes causing damage or reducing value; structural changes altering the form or structure of the building were enough.

Conclusion: The alterations were material alterations within section 3(1)(c).

Final Conclusion: The landlord was entitled to maintain the eviction suit without obtaining the District Magistrate's permission, and the decree of eviction was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 3(1)(c) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, a tenant's unauthorized construction justifies eviction if it either materially alters the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value, and structural changes affecting the form of the premises constitute material alterations.

---