TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the constructions made in the accommodation amounted to material alterations within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947; (ii) whether the purchaser of the accommodation could enforce the right to eject the tenant on the basis of material alterations made before the transfer.
Issue (i): whether the constructions made in the accommodation amounted to material alterations within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.
Analysis: The constructions included breaking open the roof, fixing a window for access, constructing a water tank, fixing a condenser, making enclosures on the roof, and laying pipes through holes in the roof. These acts altered the form and structure of the accommodation and satisfied the judicial test of material alteration. The exact year of construction did not affect the legal character of the alterations. The absence of permission in writing from the landlord also remained material.
Conclusion: The constructions amounted to material alterations, and the tenant could not avoid the consequence under Section 3(c) of the Act.
Issue (ii): whether the purchaser of the accommodation could enforce the right to eject the tenant on the basis of material alterations made before the transfer.
Analysis: The right to sue for ejectment on the ground of material alteration was treated as a right attached to the property and not a merely personal right of the former owner. On transfer of the leased property, Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act vested the lessor's rights in the transferee in the absence of a contract to the contrary. The tenant's conduct did not create a valid defence of acquiescence, because the statute required permission in writing and acquiescence could not replace it. The plea based on estoppel was also unavailable.
Conclusion: The purchaser could maintain the suit and enforce the accrued right against the tenant.
Final Conclusion: The finding of material alteration was upheld and the transferee landlord was held entitled to rely on the accrued right of eviction, so the tenant's second appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A right to eject a tenant for making material alterations in the leased property is a right attached to the property and passes to the transferee landlord under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act; permission in writing is mandatory and acquiescence is not its substitute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
