( 1 ) THE deceased defendants heirs challenge in this appeal the eviction decree passed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the defendant tenant had without the landlords consent in writing erected on the premises structures of permanent nature and was therefore disentitled from getting any protection under the Rent Act in view of sec. 13 (1) (b) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951

( 2 ) THE test for determination as to what is a permanent structure has now been evolved by the decision of the Division Bench consisting of Bhagwati J. as he then was and myself in VI G. L. R. 27. While interpretting the said section in Ibrahim v. Haji Khanmahomad Bhagwati J. speaking for the Division Bench in terms pointed out that considering the scheme of sec. 108 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act which entitled the tenant on the determination of the tenancy to remove at any time whilst he is in possession of the premises all things which he has attached to the earth it was obvious that when the Transfer of Property Act created this prohibition under sec. 108 (q) it contemplated permanent structures which would not be easily removable and the removal of which might in