Decided on June 22,1973

Narayana Naik And Ors. Appellant
Maturi Satyanarayan And Ors. Respondents


R.N.Misra, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari and is directed against the Appellate order under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioners are the tenants who have been ordered to be evicted.
(2.) THE landlord opposite party No. 1 applied for eviction of the Petitioners on the ground that the tenants were defaulters, the lease -hold has been materially altered by the tenants without the land -lords consent and that the lease -hold was necessary for the bona fide occupation of the landlord. The tenants disputed the allegations that they were defaulters and also denied the assertion of the landlord that he was in bona fide need of the house for personal occupation. They admitted that in 1962, a part of the premises was gutted by fire and they had replaced the burnt portion by pucca walls and had put corrugated sheets in place of thatch. The learned Controller negatived the plea of the land lord that the tenants were defaulters. But he accepted the other two grounds and directed eviction. Upon appeal by the tenants the learned Appellate authority came to hold that personal requirement of the landlord had not been established. He, however, sustained the order of eviction on the residuary ground that the lease -hold had been substantially altered.
(3.) MR . Mohapatra for the Petitioners contends that on the finding of the Appellate authority regarding material alteration, the landlord could not have succeeded to evict the Petitioners. There does not seem to be any dispute that when a portion of the house was gutted by fire, the tenants re -constructed it by raising pucca walls in place of kutcha walls and by putting a tin roof in place of thatch. Mr. Mohapatra contends that the re -construction amounted to an improvement and in the absence of a categorical finding that the tenants had committed any act of damage as was likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house as provided under Section 7(2)(iii) of the Act, there could be no order for eviction. It is next contended that reliance in the Supreme Court decision Manmohan Das Shah and Ors. v. Bishnu Das : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 643, was not justified in view of the fact that the provision with reference to which the Supreme Court decided the matter was to the effect 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 or is likely substantially to diminish its value". There seems to be difference in the provision which was construed by the Supreme Court and the relevant provision under the Orissa House Rent Control Act.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.