2012 (11) TMI 40 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Restores Eviction Decree, Grants One-Year Vacate Period

Purushottam Das Bangur & Ors. Versus Dayanand Gupta

Purushottam Das Bangur & Ors. Versus Dayanand Gupta - TMI Issues Involved:1. Termination of tenancy.2. Unauthorized alterations by the tenant.3. Violation of clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.4. Determination of 'permanent structure' under Section 108(p).5. Applicability of Section 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.6. High Court's interpretation and reliance on precedents.Detailed Analysis:1. Termination of Tenancy:The landlord-appellant terminated the tenancy of the respondent-tenant through a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The trial court found that the legal notice for determining the tenancy had been served upon the tenant and decreed the suit for eviction.2. Unauthorized Alterations by the Tenant:The landlord claimed that the tenant had removed the corrugated tin-sheet roof of the kitchen and store room and replaced it with a cement concrete slab without consent. Additionally, a permanent brick and mortar passage was constructed. The trial court concluded that these alterations were carried out by the tenant and not the landlord, as the tenant's story of the landlord replacing the roof was introduced belatedly in a supplementary written statement.3. Violation of Clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act:The landlord argued that the alterations violated clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108, which pertain to the lessee's obligations to keep the property in good condition, not to use the property destructively, and not to erect any permanent structure without the lessor's consent. The trial court held that the tenant had made a permanent structural change in violation of these clauses.4. Determination of 'Permanent Structure' under Section 108(p):The High Court reversed the trial court's decision, stating that the replacement of the tin-sheet roof with a concrete slab did not constitute a 'permanent structure' as it did not add to the accommodation available to the tenant but was an improvement. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that 'permanent structure' should be interpreted based on factors such as the intention behind the construction, the nature and extent of the structure, its removability, durability, and the purpose it serves. The Court concluded that the concrete slab and passage were permanent structures intended to last until the end of the tenancy, thus falling within the mischief of Section 108(p).5. Applicability of Section 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:Section 13(1)(b) allows eviction if the tenant has done any act contrary to clauses (m), (o), or (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court held that the tenant's alterations constituted a violation of Section 108(p), thus providing a valid ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(b).6. High Court's Interpretation and Reliance on Precedents:The High Court relied on precedents such as Om Prakash v. Amar Singh and Waryam Singh v. Baldev Singh, interpreting that unless waste or damage is proved, there can be no violation of clauses (m), (o), or (p). However, the Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act do not require proof of material alteration or diminished value, distinguishing it from other statutes like the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act and the U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act. The Court held that the High Court's reliance on these precedents was misplaced.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's decree for eviction. The respondent was given one year to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking and paying compensation at Rs.1500/- per month from October 1, 2012, until the date of vacation.