<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (2) TMI 577 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192154</link>
    <description>Tenants&#039; permanent structural alterations, including removal of roofs, partition walls and doors, enclosure of the verandah, merging of shops, construction over open land, and alteration of access, were held to amount to material impairment of the value or utility of the demised premises under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Court applied the test whether the tenant&#039;s acts substantially diminished the quality, strength or intrinsic worth of the premises from the landlord&#039;s point of view. On the evidence, the changes were substantial and permanent, transformed the premises into a materially different structure, and affected its fitness for practical use. Eviction was therefore warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 May 2017 16:43:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 577 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192154</link>
      <description>Tenants&#039; permanent structural alterations, including removal of roofs, partition walls and doors, enclosure of the verandah, merging of shops, construction over open land, and alteration of access, were held to amount to material impairment of the value or utility of the demised premises under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Court applied the test whether the tenant&#039;s acts substantially diminished the quality, strength or intrinsic worth of the premises from the landlord&#039;s point of view. On the evidence, the changes were substantial and permanent, transformed the premises into a materially different structure, and affected its fitness for practical use. Eviction was therefore warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>