Alterations made without permission by a tenant constitute grounds for eviction under sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, invalidating contrary findings of the appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. The Civil Revision Application is filed under section 115 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) by original Plaintiff/landlady against Respondent/original Defendant/tenant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22/09/2006 passed by 3^rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2003. Under the said impugned judgment and decree, the Appeal filed by Respondent/tenant was allowed, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15/02/2003 passed by 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan in RCS/797/1996, thereby dismissing the said suit. The Trial Court had decreed the suit by directing the Respondent to hand over possession of the suit premises. This eviction decree is reversed by the Appeal Court.

2. The Applicant/landlady filed the said suit under provisions of the BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947 (“the Bombay Rent Act’ for short) seeking eviction of the Respondent on the grounds of damages to the suit premises and for not using it with care under section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act being contravention of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, erection of permanent structure under section 13(1)(b), nuisance under section 13(1)(c), change of user under section 13(1)(k) and reasonable and bonafide requirement under section 13(1)(g) of The BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947 (‘Bombay Rent Act’ for short)

3. The area admeasuring 2546 sq.ft on the first floor of the building known as ‘Avadhoot Chintan’ situated at Rajaji Path, Dombivali (E) is the suit premises.

4. The Applicant/landlady contended that the Respondent was inducted as tenant of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.1,145/-. Initially area of two rooms admeasuring 400 sq.ft. was given to Respondent for residential use and remaining area of 2146 sq.ft. was given to run a hospital. She contended that Respondent has not been using suit premises with due care and has damaged the same. She contended that Respondent has demolished walls of the suit premises and taken out plaster of the walls, fixed tiles creating cracks to the other walls and has fixed water tank as well as air-conditioning machine by puncturing the slab and walls. She contended that Respondent changed the construction of internal rooms. She contended that these alterations amount to permanent structure carried out without her permission or permission of the local Municipal Corporation. She contended that the water from the water tank flows creating unhygienic atmosphere. She contended that doors and windows are removed and flooring has been demolished. She contended that Respondent is creating nuisance by keeping the hospital premises in unhygienic condition by throwing medical waste such as needles, blood stained cotton and waste. She contended that visitors to the hospital create noise and behave in indecent manner creating nuisance. She contended that the terrace of the building has been illegally broken open and is being used by ward boys and Ayas for objectionable and indecent purposes. She contended that Respondent has illegally converted rooms given for residence into hospital thereby committing illegal change of user. She contended that she bona fide requires the suit premises for her own use and occupation for starting institute of commercial training. She submitted that she does not have financial capacity to purchase new premises, however, Respondent is a medical pr