In the light of these decisions, if we examine the present case we find that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have obviously failed to construe Section 13(2)(iii) in its proper perspective and they have failed to apply the correct legal tests for judging the nature of the constructions made by the appellant. As has been repeatedly pointed out in several decisions it is not every construction or alteration that would result in material impairment to the value or the utility of the building. In order to attract Section 13(2)(iii) the construction must not only be one affecting or diminishing the value or utility of the building but such impairment must be of a material nature i.e. of a substantial and significant nature. It was pointed out in Om Prakash v. Amur Singh MANU/SC/0791/1987 : [1987]1SCR968 that the legislature had intended that only those constructions which brought about a substantial change in the front and structure of the building that would provide a ground for the tenant's eviction and hence it had taken care to use the word "materially altered the accommodation" and as such the construction of a chabutra, almirah, opening of window or closing a verandah by temporary structure or replacing of a leaking roof or placing partition in a room or making minor alterations for the convenient use of the accommodation would not materially alter the building. It would therefore follow that when a construction is alleged to materially impair the value or utility of a building, the construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish the value of the building either from the commercial and monetary point of view or from the utilitarian aspect of the building.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 1980
Decided On: 04.10.1988
Om Pal Vs. Anand Swarup (Dead) by Lrs.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.S. Pathak, C.J. and S. Natarajan, JJ.
Citation: (1988)4SCC545
