Permanent alterations made by a tenant without landlord consent constitute grounds for eviction under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

JUDGMENT :

1) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 16 February 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune allowing Civil Appeal No.564/1996 and setting aside the eviction decree dated 30 March 1996 passed by the 3rd Additional Small Causes Court, Pune. The Appellate Court has dismissed Civil Suit No.253/1994 filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises. Petitioner-landlord has accordingly filed the present petition challenging the decree passed by the Appellate Court on 16 February 1999.

2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Plaintiff has inherited house property bearing CTS No.39/1 on Karve Road, Pune. Premises comprising a hall, tin shed adjoining the hall, kitchen and front open space totally admeasuring 1280 sq. ft. are the suit premises in which Defendant was inducted as a tenant under the Rent Agreement dated 1 April 1982. After his induction in the suit premises, Defendant commenced restaurant business therein. According to Plaintiff, Defendant started making permanent changes, alterations and erecting permanent structures in the suit premises. The Municipal Corporation therefore issued notice to the Defendant for demolition of unauthorized additions and alterations. Defendant filed Regular Civil Suit No.1191/1993 against Pune Municipal Corporation seeking injunction against demolition of such additions and alterations. The Suit came to be dismissed on 28 September 1993. Civil Appeal No.833/1993 preferred by Defendant-tenant was also dismissed by the District Court on 11 November 1998.

3) In the above background, Plaintiff served notice dated 7 June 1989 to Defendant alleging putting up unauthorized construction in the suit premises and demanding possession hereof. The notice was replied by the Defendant denying the allegations. Plaintiff thereafter instituted Civil Suit No.253/1994 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune seeking recovery of the suit premises on the ground of making permanent alterations and construction in the suit premises without landlord’s consent. The suit was resisted by Defendants by filing Written Statement denying any additions and alterations and contending that the suit premises remained in the said condition as they were let out since inception. Based on the pleadings, the Small Causes Court framed the issue of unauthorized additions and alterations in the suit property. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit holding that the Defendant had constructed permanent structure in the suit premises without landlord’s consent. The Defendant was directed to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. Defendant filed Civil Appeal No.564/1996 challenging eviction decree dated 30 March 1996 before the District Judge, Pune. The Appellate Court has allowed Defendants’ Appeal and has reversed the eviction decree by its judgment and order dated 16 February 1999. Plaintiff’s suit for eviction is accordingly dismissed by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved by dismissal of his suit by the Appellate Court, Plaintiff has filed the present petition. By order dated 2 August 2000, this Court admitted the petition. The petition is called out for final hearing.

4) I have heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned senior advocate appearing for the Petitioner/Plaintiff. He would submit that the Trial Court has erred in allowing the Appeal filed by the Defendants-tenants and in dismissing the eviction suit. That the reasonings adopted by the Appellate Court while allowing the Appeal are perverse. That the Appellate Court has erroneously set aside the eviction decree by recording a perverse finding that the Plaintiff did not plead details about the exact alterations and permanent structures made by the Defendant-tenant. He would take me through the plaint to demonstrate that there are specific p