Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Rejection of Eviction Plea, Rules Minor Alterations by Tenant Do Not Impair Property’s Value or Utility

Case Name: Madan Lal v. Dr. Anoop Bhandari and Another
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: CR No. 4523 of 2004
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a landlord challenging concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority rejecting an eviction petition. Justice R.P. Nagrath held that minor alterations such as shifting of shutters and installation of ventilators or a toilet by the tenant, without structural change or reduction in property value, do not amount to “material impairment” of the demised premises under rent law. The Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate power to reappreciate evidence and is confined to examining legality and procedural propriety of lower court findings.

Summary: The petitioner, Madan Lal, had rented out two adjoining shops with a verandah in 1990 to Dr. Anoop Bhandari for use as a medical clinic at ₹1,310 per month. The eviction petition filed in 1996 alleged arrears of rent and that the tenant had materially altered the premises by removing shutters from one side, installing them elsewhere, enclosing the verandah, and constructing a water closet and ventilators without consent. The Rent Controller found that arrears were duly tendered on the first date of hearing and examined whether the alleged alterations amounted to structural changes affecting the building’s value or utility.

After detailed examination of site plans and witness testimony, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority held that only the shutters had been shifted within the same frontage, no roof or wall structure was changed, and the alterations actually enhanced the premises’ suitability for use as a clinic by adding necessary facilities like a bathroom and toilet. The landlord’s claim that these changes impaired the property was rejected as unsupported by evidence.

Justice R.P. Nagrath concurred with the lower authorities, observing that even if the modifications were made by the tenant, they did not alter the building’s essential structure or reduce its market value. Citing the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction under rent laws is limited to correcting errors of law, procedural irregularities, or perverse findings, and not to reassess evidence.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings that no material impairment had occurred and that the eviction petition was rightly dismissed. The Court held that the landlord’s plea was meritless and that the tenant’s alterations were minor and functional, not destructive.