It is settled principle that material impairment to the extent that the value and utility must be judged from the point of view of the landlord and no one else.
Similarly, the argument which has been raised that by putting the shutter and it would only improve the security of the premises and could not be called to be an impairment, as such, is also to be rejected on the ground that in G. Reghunathan Vs. K.V. Varghese MANU/SC/0501/2005 : 2005 (2) LAR 178, it has also been observed by the Apex Court that destruction and damage is to be observed from the stand point of the landlord.
Print Page
Similarly, the argument which has been raised that by putting the shutter and it would only improve the security of the premises and could not be called to be an impairment, as such, is also to be rejected on the ground that in G. Reghunathan Vs. K.V. Varghese MANU/SC/0501/2005 : 2005 (2) LAR 178, it has also been observed by the Apex Court that destruction and damage is to be observed from the stand point of the landlord.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 8057 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On: 05.07.2017
Sham Lal Vs. Vinod Kapoor and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.
Citation: 2017(2) RCR(Rent) 344.
Read full judgment here:Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment