📌

Moot Note
Greetings
Greetings of the day your lordship

May i please this honourable court

this is counsel no.1 dealing with issue number 1 and shall take the 9 min of
court's precious time

and my learned co-counsel shall be dealing with issue number 2 and shall take the
9 min of court's precious time respectively

we respectfully reserve 2 min for rebuttal

if your lordship are thorough with this the counsel seeks permission to proceed with
fact of the case

If your lordship are thorough with the fact of the case the counsel seeks permission
to move with the argument advance of issue number 1 the lease deed terminated
by defendant or bright is valid or not

Arguments

Structural change
At this stage It is important to note that structural change does not mean the same as
material alteration. in the case of Santosh Kumar Mazumdar vs Rekha Bose4, the
Calcutta High Court noted that "any kind of structural change of substantial character
has also not been established and thus it cannot be said that in view of the construction
of septic privy any material alteration has been caused". Thus, it can be inferred from
the quoted text that only those structural alterations which are substantial in nature

Moot Note 1
 amount to material alterations.
Following this clarification, it is argued that since the lease deed specifically talked
about structural change and not material alteration thus the counsel argues that it need
not prove that an alteration of substantial nature is necessary for breaching the lease
deed. Thus in this case even if it is argued that the structure did not cause a substantial
change, its still may very well amount to structural change.
if it to be assume that structural change and material alteration mean the same thing
then Luxe still violated clause 6 of the lease deed by constructing the dance
platform. As held by the Supreme Court, in the case of Manmohan Das Shah and
Others v. Bishun Das where a construction substantially alters the structure of the
scheduled premise, damage its value or amount to unreasonable use, it results in
structural or material change.1 "In the present case, Luxe constructed a dance platform
with a diameter of 15 feet(surface area of dance platform was 18.2m^2), bolted to the
ground by puncturing the floor to insert bolts, thus bringing about an additional load on
the floor. Such construction substantially damaged the scheduled premises and its
value and hence, amounts to structural change
The strucure also invites the application of section 108 clause (p) of transfer of property
act, 1882. the structure is permanent in the sense that it satisfies the factors laid down
Purushottam Das Bangur O rs v s. Dayanand Gupta for classification of a structure
as permanent . In the said case the Supreme Court noted that the term "permanent"
does not always imply forever . If a structure lasts till the end of the tenancy, it may be
termed permanent

pardon your lordship. With the permission of this honourable court, the cousell
would like to rely on the ..............

Nuisance

for proving nuisance the counsel would rely on the case of Miller v Jackson . in this
case the court held that The very essence of a private nuisance is the unreasonable use
of one’s land.
Luxe was permitted to use the Scheduled Premises for the operation

Moot Note 2
 of a 24-hour nightclub cum restaurant, however such usage of the Scheduled
Premises was not absolute and a condition was placed by Clause 5 that required
Luxe to operate in a peaceful manner and they had a duty to ensure that no nuisance
is caused. Guests staying in the rooms of the hotel would be severely inconvenienced
by nuisance if it is caused by Luxe, and Luxe had acknowledged that creation of
nuisance would amount to breach of the deed.

The permissible usage of the Scheduled Premises, thus, requires peaceful operation of
the
nightclub to ensure that the guests of Bright do not have to face discomfort during
their stay. However, Luxe failed to stay within the ambit of the permitted use of the
Scheduled Premises and used the land unreasonably.
• Further, the counsel reiterates the argument made above and applies it in relation to
the nuisance caused by guests of Luxe. Since the reasonable use of the land is
peaceful use, it is Luxe’s responsibility to make sure that guests of Luxe behave
accordingly and do not cause nuisance. Luxe claims such instances were immediately
resolved and that may be true, but the land has been used unreasonably
i.e., in a disruptive manner, before it was resolved.

if your lordship do not have further query then the counsel invites the co counsel to
proceed with issue 2&3
it is an honour to plead in this honorable court

Moot Note 3