# BABU MANMOHAN DAS SHAH & ORS v. BISHUN DAS October 12, , 1966

- **Citation:** [1967] 1 S.C.R. 836
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967
- **Bench:** K. SuBBA RAo, R. S. Bachawat, J.M. S11Elat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/babu-manmohan-das-shah-ors-v-bishun-das-october-12-1966-3923
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act.3 of 1947 s. 3(1)
(c)-Whether landlord only entitled to eviction on proof of materiel alteratioru-Or whether proof also nece.sory of
diminished value of pr ..
perty--Material alterations what are.
The appellant who was the owner of two shops rented to the respondent, filed a suit for the latter's ejection under Section 3(1) (c) of the U.P.
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act Ill of 1947 which provides
that no suit under the Act can be filed without the permission of the Diatrict Magistrate, except on the ground, Inter alia, that the tenant bas, without the permission of the landlord permitted or made such constructions as
"materially allered the accommodation or is lihiy substantially to diminish
its value".
The appellant claimed that the respondent had carried Oil!
material alterations consisting of lowering of the floor level of the shop by
about Ii ft. by excavating eanh and putting up a new floor, of lowering
correspondingly the front door which entailed culling and removal of the
plinthband on which the door rested, of lowering likewise the level of the
staircase
in
the
shop
and
putting
up
new steps,
and
lowering
the
height of the Chabutra outside the shop so as 10 correspond it to
the level of the new ground floor of the shop.
The trial Judge as well as the First Additional Civil Jud~<:, in appeal,
concurrontly found that the respondent had carried out material alterations
within the meaning of s. 3(1)(c); the appellant was therefore entitled to
file a suit without obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate and to
a decree of eviction. In the appeal before the High Coun it was rontended
on behalf of the respondent that on a proper interpretation of Clause (c)
of Section 3 (I), the appellant had also to establish that the alteration•, besides being material alterations, were likely substantially to diminish Ille
value of the accommodation.
In other words. the word "or" in
Clause
(c) should be read as "and". The High Coun accepted this contentioll
and held that as there was no finding by the lower coun that any harm or
damage had been cawed to the buiklir.g the appellant was not entitled to
relief under s. 3(1) (c).
HELD : Allowing the appeal : Even if the alterations did
not e&ll8<l
any damage to the premises or did not substantially diminish their value, the
alterations were material alteration~ and on that basis alone the appellants
were entilled to evict the respondent. [841 HJ
The language of the clause makes it clear that the legislature wanted to
lay down two alternatives which would furnish a ground to the landlord to
sue without the District Magistrate's permission, that is, where the tenant
has made such construction which would materially alter the accommodation or which would be likely to sub!tantially diminish its value. [839 F-0)
Hyman and Anr. v. Rose [1912] A.C. 623; distinguished. Wate1 v.
Rowland and Another f!952) 2 Q.B. 12; Blackmore v. Dimmer [1903) l
Ch. 158; referred to.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MANMOHANDAS v. B!SHNUDAS (She/at, /.)
837
Although no general definition can be given of what "material _altera·
tions" mean as such a question would depend on the facts and circum·
•tances of e~ch 'case the alterations in the present case amounted to
"material alterations'; as the coll8truction carried out by the ~pendent bad
effect of altering the form and structure of the accommodation. [840 DJ
CIVIL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION :. Civil Appeal No. 643 of
1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
January 17, 1961 of the Allahabad· High Court in. S. A. No. 90 of
1959.
•
CB. Agarwala, Champa! Rai, KC. Agarwala and P. C Agarwala,
for the appellants.
S. T. Desai and J. ·p. Goyal, for the respondent

## Text

BABU MANMOHAN DAS SHAH & ORS.
v.
BISHUN DAS
October 12, , 1966.
{K. SuBBA RAo, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT AND J.M. S11ELAT, JJ.)
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act.3 of 1947 s. 3(1)
(c)-Whether landlord only entitled to eviction on proof of materiel alteratioru-Or whether proof also nece.sory of
diminished value of pr ..
perty--Material alterations what are.
The appellant who was the owner of two shops rented to the respondent, filed a suit for the latter's ejection under Section 3(1) (c) of the U.P.
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act Ill of 1947 which provides
that no suit under the Act can be filed without the permission of the Diatrict Magistrate, except on the ground, Inter alia, that the tenant bas, without the permission of the landlord permitted or made such constructions as
"materially allered the accommodation or is lihiy substantially to diminish
its value".
The appellant claimed that the respondent had carried Oil!
material alterations consisting of lowering of the floor level of the shop by
about Ii ft. by excavating eanh and putting up a new floor, of lowering
correspondingly the front door which entailed culling and removal of the
plinthband on which the door rested, of lowering likewise the level of the
staircase
in
the
shop
and
putting
up
new steps,
and
lowering
the
height of the Chabutra outside the shop so as 10 correspond it to
the level of the new ground floor of the shop.
The trial Judge as well as the First Additional Civil Jud~<:, in appeal,
concurrontly found that the respondent had carried out material alterations
within the meaning of s. 3(1)(c); the appellant was therefore entitled to
file a suit without obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate and to
a decree of eviction. In the appeal before the High Coun it was rontended
on behalf of the respondent that on a proper interpretation of Clause (c)
of Section 3 (I), the appellant had also to establish that the alteration•, besides being material alterations, were likely substantially to diminish Ille
value of the accommodation.
In other words. the word "or" in
Clause
(c) should be read as "and". The High Coun accepted this contentioll
and held that as there was no finding by the lower coun that any harm or
damage had been cawed to the buiklir.g the appellant was not entitled to
relief under s. 3(1) (c).
HELD : Allowing the appeal : Even if the alterations did
not e&ll8<l
any damage to the premises or did not substantially diminish their value, the
alterations were material alteration~ and on that basis alone the appellants
were entilled to evict the respondent. [841 HJ
The language of the clause makes it clear that the legislature wanted to
lay down two alternatives which would furnish a ground to the landlord to
sue without the District Magistrate's permission, that is, where the tenant
has made such construction which would materially alter the accommodation or which would be likely to sub!tantially diminish its value. [839 F-0)
Hyman and Anr. v. Rose [1912] A.C. 623; distinguished. Wate1 v.
Rowland and Another f!952) 2 Q.B. 12; Blackmore v. Dimmer [1903) l
Ch. 158; referred to.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MANMOHANDAS v. B!SHNUDAS (She/at, /.)
837
Although no general definition can be given of what "material _altera·
tions" mean as such a question would depend on the facts and circum·
•tances of e~ch 'case the alterations in the present case amounted to
"material alterations'; as the coll8truction carried out by the ~pendent bad
effect of altering the form and structure of the accommodation. [840 DJ
CIVIL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION :. Civil Appeal No. 643 of
1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
January 17, 1961 of the Allahabad· High Court in. S. A. No. 90 of
1959.
•
CB. Agarwala, Champa! Rai, KC. Agarwala and P. C Agarwala,
for the appellants.
S. T. Desai and J. ·p. Goyal, for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sbelat, J. This appeal· by. special leave is directed against
the judgment and decree passed by the High Court at Allahabad
in Second Appeal No. 930 of 1959.
Two questions arise in this appeal: (!) with regard to interpretation of s. 3(l)(c) of'the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent
and Eviction 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 Lobar. The said Banarsidas vacated the shop and
thereupon with the necessary sanction of the Rent Control Officer
it was let out to the respondent as from July 24, 1954. -on July 21,
1954 the respondent executed a rent note by which he illter a/ia
agreed that he would not have any right to make any alterations,
additions, or 'Tor phor of any sort' in the said shop. The respondent took possession of the said shop thus b,ecoming a tenant
of both the shops. On August 8, 1954, the appellants at the request
of the respondent removed the said partition wall and replaced
the said arch by iron girders enabling the respondent to have a
compact and commodious unit. There is no dispute that about
the middle of October 1954 the respondent started making alterations in the said shop without the consent of the appellants. Thereupon the appellants first by a telegram and then by letters called
upon the respondent to refrain from making t_he said alterations
as such alterations were contrary to the express covenant contained
in the said rent note. Ultimately by a notice dated February 22,
1955 they terminated the said tenancy and called upon the
respondent to hand over quiet and vacant possession. On the-
:838
SUl'lll!ME OOU1 T llBPOI. Tl
(1967) I S.C.R.
respondent failing to do so the appellants filed a suit for ejectment
and other incidental reliefs, claiming that as the said alterations
were material alterations they were entitled to file the suit for eviction without obtaining therefor the permission of the District Magis-
-trate as required by section 3(1) of the said A~t.
The relevant part of section 3(1) reads as under :
"Subject to any order passed under
sub-section
(3) no suit shall, without the permission of the District
Magistrate be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant
for his eviction from any accommodation, except on 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 construction 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 It ft. by excavating earth therefrom and putting up a
new floor, of lowering corre<pondingly the front door which entailed cutting and removal ()f the plinthband on which the door
rested, of lowering likewise the level of the staircase in the shop
and putting up new steps thereto and lastly of lowering the height
of the Chabutra outside the shop so as to correspond it to the level
of the new ground floor of the shop.
Both the courts found that
these alterations were material alterations of the accommodation
within the meaning of s. 3(1)(c) and held that the appellants were
entitled to file the suit without obtaining the permission of the
District Magistrate and to a decree of eviction.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional
Civil Judge, the respondent filed a Second Appeal in the High
Court. The High Court accepted the concurrent finding of the
two courts below that the respondent had carried out the said
alterations without the appellants' consent and agreed that the
said alterations amounted to material alterations. But it was
argued before the High Court that clause (c) of section 3(1) would
not apply as on a proper interpretation of that clause the appeUants had also to establish that the alterations, besides being material alterations, were likely substantially to diminish the value
of the accommodation. The High Court held that there was no
finding by either of the courts below that any harm or damage
I
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MANMOHANDAS v. BISHNUDAS (Shelat, J.)
839
had been caused to the building and on that footing reversed the .
judgment 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 m, 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 eviction, they having been .carried
out without the permission of the appellants. Mr. Desai, on the
other hand, argued that the word "or" in clause (c) should be read
as "and" and therefore unless the appellants also established that
the alterations had diminished or were likely substantially to
diminish the value of the accommodation clause (c). would not·
operate and the suit would not be maintainable without the permission of the District Magistrate. He also argued that the said
alterations in fact enhanced the value of the accommodation as
held by the High Court and were not material alterations within
the meaning of the said clause.
In our view clause (c) of section 3 (!)cannot bear the construction suggested by Mr. Desai. The clause is couched in simple
and unambiguous language and in its plain meaning provides that
it would be a good ground enabling a landlord to sue for eviction
without the permission of the District Magistrate if the tenant
has made or has permitted to be made without the landlord's consent in writing such construction which materially alters the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value. The
language of the clause makes it clear that the legislature wanted
to lay down two alternatives which would furnish a ground t.o the
landlord to sue· without the District Magistrate's permission, that
is, where the tenant has made such construction which would
materially alter the accommodation or which would be likely to
subst.antially diminish its 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 llS materially
alters the accommodation but is also such that it would substantially
840
SUPllEYE
COUP.T
Rl!PORTS
{1967) l S.CR.
diminish its value.
Such an interpretation' is not warranted for
the simpk reason that there may conceivably be material alterations which do not, however, diminish the value of the accommodation and on the other hand there may equally conceivably be alterations which arc not material alterations but nevertheless would
substantially diminish the value of the premises. It seems to us
that the legislature intended to provide for both the contingencies
and where one or the other exists it was intended to furnish a ground
to the landlord to sue his tenant without having to obtain the
previous permission of the District Magistrate. The construction
of clause (c) 'placed by the High Court is therefore not correct.
As regards the alterations, there is no dispute that the -respondent carried them out without the permission of the appellants.
The question then is whether they were such that they materially
altered the accommodation as provided by_ clause (c).
Without
attempting to lay down any general definition as to what material
alterations mean, as such a question would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case, the alterations in the present .case
must mean material alterations as !he construction carried out by
the respondent had the effect of altering the form and structure of
the accommodation. The expression "material alterations" in
its ordinary meaning would mean important alterations, such as
those which materially or substant~~lly change the front or the
structure of the premises. It may be that such alterations in a given
case might not cause damage to the '[lremises 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 A11r. v. Rose (l) where relief
against forfeiture of lease was granted, inter a/ia, 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
!cased premises were intended originally and were used as a chapel
but on ~he leasehold being sold the assignees made the alterations
complained of as they desired to use the premises as a cinema
theatre.
On these facts and the terms of the lease, the Hoose or
Lords held that in view of the fact that the lease did not prohibit
the contemplated user of the premises as a cinematograph theatre,
the alterations in the circu.-nstanccs of that case did not constitute
any breach of the covenant and since the purchasers of the leasehold had offered as a condition of obtaining relief against forfeiture
to deposit a sum of money to secure the restoration of the premises
to their original condition at the end of the lease relief ought to be
granted on the terms so offered. This decision in our view cannot
be of assistance.
As an illustration as to what a structural altera-
(1) (1912) A.C. 623.
A
B
c
D
•
'
G
H
A
B
c
D
MANMOHANDAS v. BISHUNDAS (She/at, J.)
841
tion means some assistance can be had from the decision in Wates
v. Rowland and Another (1) though it was a case of interpretation
of s. 2(l)(a) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. The Court of Appeal there found that whereas substitution of titled floor for a wooden floor which had become rotten owing to rise in the water level in the land fell within'
the description of "repairs" within the meaning of s. 2(l)(a), the
laying of the additional concrete bed provided the house with a
better substratum than it had before and was an improvement or a
structural alteration of the house within the meaning of the said
section. Similarly in Bickomore v: Dimmer(2) Lord Cozens-Hardy
L. J. construing a covenant against alterations in a lease, made a
distinctio11 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 H ft. by
excavating the earth therefrom and putting up a new floor, the
consequent lowering of the front door and putting up instead a
larger door, lowering correspondingly the height of the Chabutra
E
so as to bring it on the level of the new door-step, the lowering
of the base· of the staircase entailing the addition of new steps
thereto and cutting the plinthband on which the door originally
rested so as to bring the entrance to the level of the new floor are
clearly structural alterations which are not only material alterations
but are such as to give a 11ew face to the form and structure of the
r · premises. In this view the construction carried out by the respondent must fall within the mischief of clause ( c) and entitles the appellants to maintain their suit for eviction without the permission
of the District Magistrate and to a decree for evicti.on. Both
the contentions urged by Mr. Desai must therefore fail.
G
.In our view, the High Court was in error in allowing the appeal
of the respondent only on the ground that the said alterations did
not appear to have caused any harm to the· premises or that there
was no such fuiding by either of the two courts below. The basis
of the High Court's juClgment was on the interpretation which it
sought to put on clause (c), an interpretation commended by Mr.
Desai for our acceptance. As already stated, even if the alterations
H
did not cause any damage to the premises or did nQt substantially
diminish their value the alterations were material alterations and
(1) (1952) 2 Q.B.' 12.
(2) (1903) 1 Ch. 158.
M17Sup.C.l/66-9
842
SUPllEMB CO'UllT JlEPOll.TS
(1967] 1 S.c.J.
on th1t b1sis ·alone the appellants were entitled to evict the resA
pondent.
We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the High Court and restore the judgment and
decree passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, whereby
he directed the e.viction of the respondent. The respondent will
8
pay to the appellants their costs throughout.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.