JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---This petition is by the original defendant No. 1 - tenant against whom the Appeal Court has passed a decree for eviction solely on the ground that the tenant has erected on the premises a permanent structure in the sense that a window on the western wall of the premises was closed after it was damaged due to theft resulting in the removal of the window frame itself. The few facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under :--2. The first respondent-Moreshwar Kale is the landlord of the premises which consist of gala No. 3 on the ground floor of House No. 107, a chawl at Karjat, Dist. Raigad. The petitioner is a tenant since 1942. The rent of the premises is barely Rs. 6/- p.m. plus educational-cess of Rs. 1.34p.m. The tenant, therefore, pays to the landlord Rs. 7.34 p.m. The premises are used as residential house. On the night between 19th and 20th July, 1976, there was a theft and this resulted in the removal of the window on the western wall of the premises occupied by the petitioner-tenant. The tenant thought it necessary, with a view to having additional safety and security, to close the window.

3. Taking advantage of this development, the landlord issued a notice at Ex. 24 on 28th November, 1976 terminating the tenancy of the tenant on four grounds, viz. (i) erection of a permanent structure without consent of the landlord within the meaning of section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the said Rent Act); (ii) the tenant being guilty of conduct which is nuisance and annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupier within the meaning of section 13(1)(c) of the said Rent Act; (iii) reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord within the meaning of section 13(1)(g) and (iv) the tenant having acquired vacant possession of suitable residence within the meaning of section 13(1)(l).

4. The suit was filed on 7th December, 1976 being Reg. Civil Suit No. 74 of 1976. Written Statement at Ex. 21 was filed by the tenant on 30th April, 1979 denying the allegations of the landlord. It was denied that there was erection of any permanent structure on the premises. Other allegations of nuisance, annoyance, bona fide and reasonable requirement and acquisition of suitable alternate premises were also denied. I am not concerned with the last three allegations since the Appeal Court has passed a decree only on the sole ground falling under section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, namely, closure of the window amounting to erection of a permanent structure on the premises.

5. At the trial, the landlord examined himself as P.W. 1. He also led evidence of Parvatibai Godbole P.W. 2, a neighbour in the said chawl and of Hasan Hussain Shaikh P.W. 3, the mason who closed the opening with bricks. The petitioner also examined another neighbour Laxman Hinganekar as D.W. 1. Incidentally he was one of the two panchas for the panchanama at Exh. 43 dated 20th July, 1976 after the theft during the night between 19th and 20th July, 1976.,

6. In view of the above pleadings, necessary issues were framed and the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no merit in any of the contentions raised by the landlord on the other three points, with which I am not concerned in this petition. Even on the question of erecting a permanent structure, it was held that it was because of the removal of the window frame during the theft that it was necessary for the tenant to close the opening by bricks. The work was carried out by the tenant, since it was necessary for the better enjoyment of the suit premises and in the absence of it, it was dangerous to live in the premises with the opening of 2 x 2. In the result, the trial Court held that no permanent structure was erected by the tenant within the meaning of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act so as to justify passing of a decree for eviction in the facts and circumstances of the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document