The construction of a shed by a tenant on open land does not convert the tenancy into one covered by the Rent Control Act, and valid termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act is sufficient for eviction.

Judgment :

1. By order dated 1st November 2017, the second appeal was admitted by this Court. The appellant before this Court is the Plaintiff aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissing his suit seeking eviction of the Defendant.

Proceedings Before The Trial Court:

Plaint:

2. RCS No. 82 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction of defendants from the suit property described as part of non agricultural land bearing Gat No.395 (part) admeasuring 50 x 45, 30 x 25 feet open plot. The open plot of land was let out to Bhikaji Laxman Rao Jadhav- the predecessor of defendants for the purpose of business on monthly rent of Rs.75/-. The original tenant Bhikaji expired in January 2010 and defendant nos.1 to 6 are the legal heirs of original defendant. On the open land the original tenant had constructed a temporary shed. RCS No.43 of 2081 was filed by Bhikaji seeking injunction against the plaintiff which was dismissed by the trial Court as against which the appeal preferred was also dismissed. As the suit property was required for the bonafide use of plaintiff, RCS No.10 of 2008 was filed seeking eviction of deceased Bhikaji which was withdrawn on 4th March 2010 with the permission of Court. The tenancy of the defendant was terminated by issuing notice dated 31st March, 2010 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (TP Act, 1882) which was duly received by the defendants. As the defendants declined to handover possession of the tenanted property, the suit was filed.

Written Statement:

3. Written statement was filed by defendant no. 2-Suresh. It was admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of open land which was let out to the original tenant Bhikaji for business purpose on yearly rent of Rs.900/-. The original tenant Bhikaji was tenant in respect of area admeasuring 100 x 45 feet and subsequently, Bhikaji constructed a permanent shed on the said property out of his own funds in which Bhikaji was carrying out business of hardware and machinery. The business is thereafter being carried out by the present Defendants. The issuance of notice dated 31st March 2010 issued under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was admitted as also the reply dated 13th April 2010. Earlier RCS no.10 of 2008 filed under the provisions of rent control legislation was withdrawn and as such the present suit was liable to be dismissed. There is no bonafide requirement of plaintiff and as the suit property is required by the plaintiff for the purpose of development, the plaintiff is liable to make temporary arrangement for the defendants and handover the possession of premises in the newly constructed building on the earlier agreed yearly rent of Rs.900/-. Findings of Trial Court:

4. The plaintiff examined himself and defendant no.2 examined himself and deposed as per the contents of their respective pleadings. The Trial Court held that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and is barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel and the tenancy not being validly terminated, the plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of possession and dismissed the suit.

Findings of Appellate Court:

5. The Appellate Court framed and answered the points for determination as under :

6. The findings of the Appellate Court can be broadly summarized as under:

a) The premises let out to the defendant was open space over which