TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (10) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction Act, III of 1947 and (2) whether the alterations carried out by the respondent-tenant were alterations which materially altered the accommodation within the meaning of the said clause (c). The appellants are the owners of a building situate on Dashaswamedh Road in Varanasi, the ground floor of which consisted of two shops separated by a partition wall and an arch in between. The respondent was the tenant of one of these two shops. The other shop, adjacent to the respondent's shop, had been let out to one Benarsidas Lohar. The said Banarsidas vacated the shop and thereupon with the necessary sanction of the Rent Control Officer it was let out to the respondents as from July 24, 1,954. On July 21, 1954 the respondent executed a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on or more of the following grounds (c) That the tenant has, without the permission in writing of the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such constructio n as, in the opinion of the court, has materially altered the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value." Both the trial Judge and in appeal against his judgment and decree the First Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, concurrently found that the respondent had carried out alterations, that he did so without obtaining the consent of the appellants and that the alterations consisted of lowering of the floor level of the shop by about 11/2 ft. by excavating ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment and decree passed by the lower court, allowed the respondent's appeal and dismissed the appellants' suit. Mr. Agarwal, for the appellants, contended before us that the interpretation placed by the High Court on section 3(1)(c) was erroneous inasmuch as the High Court failed to appreciate that clause (c) was disjunctive and that it would apply either where the alterations are material alterations or, even if, they are not, they are likely to diminish substantially the value of the accommodation. He also contended that the alterations were material alterations within the meaning of clause (c) and that therefore, the appellants were entitled to a decree for evicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts value. The ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent the manifest intention of the legislature from being carried out. There is no reason why the word "or" should be construed otherwise than in its ordinary meaning. If the construction suggested by Mr. Desai were to be accepted and the word "or" were to be construed as meaning "and" it would mean that the construction should not only be such as materially alters the accommodation but is also such that it would substantially diminish its value. Such an interpretation is not warrante....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven case might not cause damage to the premises or its value or might not amount to an unreasonable use of the leased premises or constitute a change in the purpose of the lease. The High Court however seems to have relied on Hymen and Anr. v. Rose [1912] A.C. 623.where relief against forfeiture of lease was granted, inter alia, on the ground that the alterations carried out by the lessee had not done any harm to any one and the reversioner was in no way injured. But the question there was one of interpretation of a covenant contained in the lease and whether the alterations constituted waste. The leased premises were intended originally and were used as a chapel but on the leasehold being sold the assignees made the alterations complained ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truing a covenant against alterations in a lease, made a distinction between alterations intended for the proper user of leased premises and material alterations observing that some limitation must be put on the word "alteration" in such a covenant and that it could not be applied to a change in the wall paper of a room or to the putting up of a gas-bracket, or the fixing of an electric bell, though in fixing it some holes might have to be made in the wall and that the covenant should be limited to something which alters the form or structure of the building. Lowering the level of the ground floor by about 1-1/2 ft. by excavating the earth therefrom and putting up a new floor, the consequent lowering of the front door and putting up inst....