Eviction under Rent Act requires definitive evidence of permanent structures, including their nature and impact, which was insufficiently established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. This revision application is directed against a judgment and decree dated 26^th March, 2021 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Appeal No.60 of 2011, whereby the Appellate Bench was persuaded to allow the appeal preferred by the deceased respondent Nos.1 and 2 (the landlords) against the judgment and decree in RAE&R Suit No.230/393 of 2000 dismissing the suit, and instead decree the said suit for eviction of the applicant on the ground of carrying out additions and alterations of permanent nature without the consent of the landlords.

2. The background facts necessary for determination of the revision application can be stated in brief as under :

2.1 The deceased respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the owners/landlords of the premises suited at Plot No.866 TP Scheme No.IV, old Prabhadevi Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai. There were multiple structures on the said property (the larger property). The applicant – defendant was a tenant in respect of Room No.2 in structure A (the demised premises).

2.2 The demised premises comprised of a kitchen, one room and an open veranda/otla.

2.3 The plaintiffs purchased the larger property in the year 1967. Before the plaintiffs purchased the suit property, the defendant had encroached upon the common veranda/otla outside the suit premises by enclosing the said veranda/otla. The defendant had allegedly constructed the kitchen platform also inside the suit premises. Thus, the plaintiffs and one Smt. Kamladevi Khandelwal had instituted a suit being RAE Suit No.5062 of 1971 for the possession of the demised premises on the ground of erection of permanent structures. Eventually the said suit came to be disposed in view of the Consent Terms arrived at between the parties.

2.4 When the plaintiffs took out execution, the defendant filed RAD Suit No.1045 of 1989 for the declaration that the Consent Terms were void and illegal.

2.5 During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, between the period 1988 and 1991, the plaintiffs alleged, the defendant constructed a wooden mezzanine floor on the entire kitchen portion of the suit premises and also constructed a water closet (WC) outside the suit premises. To support the mezzanine floor, defendant had erected two brick masonry walls inside the suit premises. Thus, the plaintiffs asserted, the defendant committed the acts of waste of the property and the said erection was in the nature of permanent additions and alterations to the demised premises. In addition, in the year 1995, the defendant constructed one additional veranda/otla admeauring 2 ft. X 6 ft. outside the demised premises and extended the original veranda/otla and enclosed the additional construction also.

2.6 In addition to the aforesaid grounds, the plaintiffs had sought decree of eviction against the defendant on multiple statutory grounds, like, the use of the demised premises by the defendant caused nuisance and annoyance to the neighbouring occupants; the defendant also caused annoyance to the plaintiffs and their family members by making false, frivolous and motivated complaints with various authorities and the defendant was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent.

3. The defendant resisted the suit. The very tenability of the suit on the very grounds on which the previous suit was instituted and disposed in view of the consent terms between the parties, was called in question. It was contended that the plaintiffs had instituted the suit with an