The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, permanent construction by a tenant without the landlord's written consent can lead to eviction. The court emphasized the requirement of written consent for permanent construction and considered the removability of the construction without serious damage to the premises.

ORDER :

P.B. Majmudar, J.

1. This Revision Application has been filed by the original defendant against whom the respondent-landlord had filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 23 of 1977 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (JD), Balasinor.

2. The facts leading to the present litigation are as under :

That the respondent herein is the owner of the suit premises situated in Balasinor town. The suit premises were let out to the defendant for storing tobacco at an yearly rent of Rs. 425/-. However, the rent was required to be paid every month. According to the plaintiff the defendant had failed to pay the rent after 31.1.1975 and, therefore, a notice of demand was served on the defendant on 11.9.1975 yet the rent was not paid. Thereafter the defendant had sent the arrears of rent of Rs. 247.90 on 3.10.1975. However, according to the plaintiff, on the date of filing of the suit, he was in arrears of rent from 1.9.1974 and according to the plaintiff, the defendant had not paid the taxes. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is not using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let and that he had made permanent construction without the consent of the plaintiff and that he has constructed a kitchen, latrine and bathroom and has also fixed windows and doors and partition walls. The defendant, therefore, has carried out permanent construction in the suit premises and that he has converted the use of the suit premises from non-residential to residential purpose without any legal right. On the aforesaid ground the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.

The defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement resisting the suit on various grounds. It was contended by the defendant in the written statement that he had paid the entire rent and he was not in arrears of rent. That he made construction with the consent of the plaintiff. It was also stated that the construction in question is not of permanent nature. It was his further case that at the time of letting the suit premises, the same was in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, with the consent of the plaintiff the aforesaid construction was carried out. It was further stated that the construction is in the nature of improvements and, therefore, there was no question of passing any decree on the aforesaid ground. The case of the plaintiff about the change of user of the suit premises was also denied by the defendant. On these and other grounds the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

3. From the above pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge framed various issues at Exh. 15 and after recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant had carried out the construction which is of a permanent nature. The learned trial Judge, ultimately by his judgment and order dated 17.8.1981 decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of permanent construction. The trial Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 35.41 plus taxes. Aforesaid decree of the trial Court was challenged by the tenant by way of Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1981 before the learned District Judge, Khada at Nadiad. Said appeal was heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Khada at Nadiad and ultimately the learned Appellate Judge by his judgment and order dated 4.5.1984 confirmed the decree of the trial Court under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and dismissed the appeal of the appellant-tenant.

4. The order of the learned Appellate Judge is impugned in the present Revision Application. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is required to decide whether the tenant is required to be evicted under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act or not.

5. Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out that the construction in the premises is carried out with the consent of the landlord and, therefore, there was no question of passing a