D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS is landlords revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act (for short "the Act" ).

( 2 ) ). One room and osari was let out by the landlord-revisionist to the defendant-respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 4. 50 ps. The landlord was residing at Nasik and doing business there. He came to Rajkot on 23-6-1981 whereafter he came to know that the tenant had demolished the entire suit premises without his consent and was constructing new suit premises without written consent or permission from the landlord. Accordingly, the suit for eviction was filed under sec. 13 (l) (b) of the Rent Act.

( 3 ) ). The suit was resisted by the defendant-respondent denying the aforesaid allegation of the landlord. He pleaded that the suit premises was in dilapidated condition, on 21-5-1971 one wall of the suit premises had fallen down and on 7-5-1981 the roof of the suit premises bent down. The defendant informed the plaintiff-landlord about the condition of the suit premises through notice dated 8-5-1983 but the plaintiff did not get the suit premises repaired. Thereafter, back side wall had also fallen down in rainy season. Consequently, the resondent- defendant constructed two walls and put tiles on the roof on the same position and he did not raise any permanent construction inasmuch as the size and design of the suit accommodation was not changed and the walls were constructed at the place of old walls which had fallen down.

( 4 ) ). The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, found that the tenant-respondent had raised new construction of a permanent nature in the suit premises and those constructions were not in the nature of minor repairs. Consequently, the landlords suit was decreed.

( 5 ) ). The tenant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court taking shelter behind explanation to Sec. 13 (l) (b) found that the constructions raised by the tenant- respondent were removable and were saved under this Explanation and could not be categorised as permanent structure without the landlords consent. Consequently, the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the landlord for eviction was dismissed. It is, therefore, this revision.

( 6 ) ). The only short point for consideration in this Revision is the scope of sec. 13 (l) (b) and Explanation appended thereto.

( 7 ) ). Shri S. M. Shah, learned Counsel for the revisionist has cotended that the lower Appellate Court has wrongly interpreted Explanation to under Sec. 13 (l) (b) and has wrongly held that the constructions raised by the tenant are saved under Explanation and cannot be termed as construction of permanent nature without written consent of the landlord.

( 8 ) ). Section 13 (l) (b) of the Act provides that a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that save as otherwise provided in Sec. 23 (A) the tenant has without the landlords consent given in writing erected on the premises any permanent structure.

( 9 ) ). Explanation to this Section inter alia provides that for the purposes of clause (b) no permanent structure shall be deemed to be erected on any premises merely by a reason of the construction of a partition wall, door or lattice work or the filling of kitchen-stand or such other alterations made in the premises as can be removed without serious damage to the premises.

( 10 ) ). In order to appreciate the provisions of Sec. 13 (l) (b) read with explanation appended thereto, it has to be seen what is the nature of construction alleged or raised by the tenant-respondent. In a Revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Act the scope for reappraisal of evidence is limited and the evidence can be reappreciated not with a view to record findings which were not recorded by the trial Court or the Appellate Court or to substitute a finding over the findings recorded by the two Courts below. However, reappraisal of evidence is permissible to assess whether the findings recorded by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document