JUDGMENT - H. SURESH, J.:---This is a tenant's petition against an order of eviction passed by the Appeal Court under section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act).

2. The brief facts are as follows: The respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahad, being Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 1977 for eviction of the petitioner, the tenant, on the ground that she wanted the premises for herself for her use and occupation under section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act. The defendant filed his written-statement. In his written-statement, he contended that he has been in occupation of the said premises from about 1961 and that at the time of the occupation of the premises he had to carry out various repairs and certain alterations and he had to spend about a sum of Rs. 9,000/- for that purpose. He contended that as to how the suit house was in a dilapidated condition and that he had carried out these repairs and alterations for the purpose of making it habitable and tenable and he carried out all these repairs and alterations with the knowledge of the then landlord. He denied that the respondent wanted the premises reasonably or bona fide. He also pleaded that if any decree is passed, he would suffer greater hardship than the respondent, if it is denied to her.

3. Since in his written-statement, he had set out various items of repairs and alterations as carried out by him much prior to the date when the respondent became the landlady of the premises, she was advised to amend the plaint and plead the ground under section 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act. In fact, if one looks at the plaint, one would make out that there has been no proper plea at all on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had only pleaded that the defendant has made certain permanent alterations and that is all. The plaintiff has not even set out the particulars of such a plea at all. In fact, the learned Judge ought not to have proceeded with the framing of the issues in this behalf. However, as the matter stood at that stage, issues were framed and inter alia an issue with regard to the allegation that the defendant had erected permanent structure was also framed.

4. I must further mention that as far as the ground under section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act is concerned, the respondent was negatived, both by the trial Court as also in the Appeal Court. That finding still stands. As far as the other ground of the defendant having erected permanent structure is concerned, the trial Court held in favour of the petitioner/defendant and dismissed the suit. However, in the Appeal Court, with regard to certain items of such alleged permanent structures, the Appeal Court came to the conclusion that they were permanent structures within the meaning of section 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act and accordingly he allowed the Appeal and passed the decree for eviction. It is against this judgment given by the Appeal Court dated 17th April, 1982, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India.

5. I must mention here that when the defendant pleaded in reply to the plaintiff's case under section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act that he had carried out the various repairs and alterations so as to make it habitable, he had expressly pleaded that was done with the consent of the then landlord. He also pleaded in the written-statement that the plaintiff was estopped from contending otherwise. It is also on record that all these repairs had been carried out sometime in 1961-62 and some in the year 1972, but all were carried out much before the date when the respondent became the landlady. She is the sister of the original landlord and she acquired he ownership rights by virtue of a gift deed dated 3rd March, 1977. It was, therefore, argued before the learned trial Judge that since the plaintiff became the owner of the house much after all these alterations and repair

Click Here to Read the rest of this document