Material Alterations Raising Presumption of Impaired Value Justify Eviction Despite Lack of Specific Pleadings

The petitioners (tenants) challenged an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Solan, and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The respondent (landlord) sought eviction on grounds that the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation, required bona fide for rebuilding, and that the tenants had illegally converted an open verandah into a room and kitchen without consent.

The Rent Controller found the building unsafe and that the tenants had made material alterations, though it rejected the ground of bona fide requirement for rebuilding as the landlord intended a non-residential use.

The Appellate Authority upheld these findings.

1. Whether the tenants made material additions and alterations that impaired the value and utility of the premises under Section 14(2)(iii) of the Act.

2. Whether the eviction petition was maintainable despite the alleged lack of specific pleadings regarding the "impairment of value and utility".

3. Whether the tenanted premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

The court applied Section 14(2)(iii) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, which permits eviction if a tenant commits acts likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building.

It relied on Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507, regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 24(5) of the Act, which prohibits re-appreciating evidence unless there is perversity.

It further applied the principle from M/s Mohan Lal Ashok Raj v. Lajwanti Devi, 1997(2) RLR 197, holding that if parties are aware of the issues and lead evidence, a lack of specific pleading cannot be raised for the first time in revision.

The Court observed that while the landlord’s pleadings could have been more specific, the tenants were fully aware of the case, as evidenced by the issues framed and the evidence led by PW-5 regarding diminished value.

The court noted that the tenants did not object to such evidence during the trial and thus could not raise the "lack of pleadings" argument in a revision petition.

Regarding the alterations, a notice from the Municipal Council (Ex. PW-2/D) proved unauthorized construction was carried out after the tenancy began.

On the status of the building, the Court upheld the finding that the premises were unsafe, noting that other tenants had already vacated and expert reports (PW-3) confirmed the dilapidated state.

The Court concluded that under Section 24(5), it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are palpably wrong or legally erroneous.

The court affirmed the eviction order, ruling that the unauthorized conversion of the verandah into a room and kitchen materially impaired the utility of the premises, and the lack of specific phrasing in the pleadings did not vitiate the proceedings as the parties were at ad idem during the trial.