OM PRAKASH versus AMAR SINGH & ANR.

OM PRAKASH versus AMAR SINGH & ANR.

The partition wall and tin shed constructed by the appellant were temporary in nature, did not alter the form or structure of the building in a substantial/essential manner, and thus did not amount to material alterations under Section 14(c) of the U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952. Hence, the landlord was not entitled to eviction on this ground.

Parties
Appellant: Om Prakash; Respondents: Amar Singh & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 January 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 3684 of 1966
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction of Tenant, Material Alteration of Tenanted Premises, U.p. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952
Rent Control Property Law Eviction of Tenant Material Alteration of Tenanted Premises U.p. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Om Prakash

Appellant

Amar Singh & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 3684 of 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged constructions by the tenant constituted material alterations under Section 14(c) of the U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952, justifying eviction without landlord's consent
  2. 2 Whether temporary structures such as a partition wall and a tin shed constitute material alterations

Ratio Decidendi

The partition wall and tin shed constructed by the appellant were temporary in nature, did not alter the form or structure of the building in a substantial/essential manner, and thus did not amount to material alterations under Section 14(c) of the U.P. Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952. Hence, the landlord was not entitled to eviction on this ground.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside
  • Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court restored