The judgment establishes that the erection of permanent structures by a tenant without the landlord's consent, in violation of Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, can lead to eviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the present Civil Revision Application, Applicant (original Defendant-Tenant) has challenged legality of judgment and order dated 27.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judge and Ad-hoc District Judge of Court of Small Causes, (Appellate Bench), Mumbai in Appeal No.78 of 2015.

2. Applicant is the original Defendant (for short “tenant”). Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are original Plaintiffs (for short “landlord”). They shall be referred to as tenant and landlord for convenience. Suit property is Flat No.9 situated on 5th Floor of Laxmi Building, 35/37, Kennedy Bridge, Mumbai 400 004 (for short "the suit premises").

3. On 07.11.2001, landlord of suit premises instituted R.A.E. & R. Suit No.1030/1789 of 2001 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai against tenant seeking following reliefs:-

"(a) that the defendant be ordered and decreed to hand over to the plaintiffs vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises namely flat No.9 on the 5th floor of the building known as Laxmi Building, 35/37, Kennedy Bridge, Mumbai -400 004;

(b) the defendant to ordered and directed by an order and permanent injunction of this Hon'ble Court to forthwith remove himself, his family members, servants and his articles from the said setback portion of the 5th floor which is overlooking the kitchen of the suit premises and which has been enclosed by the defendant by putting up an iron Grill and covering the same on the top by tin shed, as detailed in paragraph No.3 above;

(c) the defendant be ordered and decreed to pay mense profits @ 431.05 per month to the plaintiffs from the date of filing of the suit till such time and period the defendants continues in unauthorised and illegal occupation of the suit premises and every part thereof and for such other and further time that the plaintiffs are illegally prevented from taking and recovery vacant possession of the suit premises."

3.1. Suit was instituted for seeking eviction of tenant from suit premises on the following grounds:-

(a) that tenant constructed illegally and unauthorisedly construction of permanent nature and carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises without obtaining prior written permission of landlord;

(b) that tenant committed several acts of waste and damage to landlord’s property; and

(c) that tenant caused nuisance and annoyance to the neighbouring tenants of suit premises and owner/occupiers of neighboring buildings.

3.2. Landlord contended that tenant illegally and unauthorisedly constructed permanent structure in suit premises and carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature without obtaining prior written permission. It was further contended that tenant committed several acts of waste and damage to the building by illegally and unauthorisedly enclosing the open to sky (eastern side) setback portion on the 5th floor and permanently damaging the gutter pipeline and waste water passing through the said setback portion causing nuisance and seepage thereby damaging walls of the 3rd and 4th floor of the building and such act of tenant caused nuisance and annoyance to other tenants in the building as well as occupiers of neighboring buildings. By Notice dated 20.01.2001 tenant was directed to restore the suit premises in its original condition by removing all illegal works, but tenant did not adhere to the notice. Hence on 31.05.2001, landlord through Advocate’s notice terminated tenancy of tenant and called upon him to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of suit premises.

3.3. Trial Court, by order dated 20.01.2007 in Interim Notice No.663/2006, allowed landlord to amend the plaint and add additional grounds for eviction as under:-

(a) that tenant enclosed the entire setback area of terrace i.e. the setback portion on 5th floor abutting the kitchen by M.S. Grills having top of G.I. Sheets which covered the common inlet pipeline for fresh water going to the over head water storage tank and making it accessible only through th