The court established that a structure's permanence is determined by its material, durability, and intended use, justifying eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act despite tenant's claims of temporary nature.

1) Writ Petition is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 26 August 2019 passed by the learned District Judge-8, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.215 of 2010 allowing the Appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5 December 2009 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2002. The Small Causes Court had dismissed Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2002 instituted by Respondent-Plaintiff on the ground of erection of permanent construction on the suit premises under provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act). The Appellate Court has reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court and has decreed Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2002 on the grounds of carrying out permanent construction causing destruction or danger to the building and erection of unauthorised extension of permanent nature to the suit premises. The Appellate Court has directed Petitioner/Defendant-tenant to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Appellate Court, Petitioner-tenant has filed the present Petition.

2) Plaintiff-Respondent is the owner of the bungalow, outhouse and other structures known as ‘Bungalow No.7’ situated at General Land Register Survey No.426, North Petty Staff Lines within the limits of Pune Cantonment Board, Pune. According to Plaintiff, the Pune Cantonment Board is the owner of the land bearing General Land Register Survey No.426, whereas structures standing thereon are owned by Plaintiff. Suit premises comprise of two parts (i) main bungalow consisting of hall- cum-dining, kitchen, two bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, verandah, dressing room and storeroom situated on the ground floor, totally admeasuring 1700 sq.ft. and (ii) two rooms in the outhouse admeasuring 260 sq.ft. Both structures together are described as suit premises in the plaint. Defendant was inducted as monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises by the erstwhile owner and landlord. Plaintiff purchased the structures located at the plot from the erstwhile owner vide five registered sale deeds executed in the year 1990. According to Plaintiff Defendant erected unauthorised extension to the suit premises adjacent to the portion of outhouse admeasuring 21 ft. x 16 ft. plus verandah admeasuring 5 ft x 21 ft. by use of MS angles frame enclosed with asbestos cement sheets with polythene roof. Plaintiff alleged that the said structure has been used as a room and the same is of permanent nature. Plaintiff also alleged construction of a toilet by use of bricks, cement and GI sheet partition. According to Plaintiff the said constructions were carried out without the written consent of landlord and without permission from the Cantonment Board.

3) Plaintiff accordingly instituted Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2002 in the Court of Small Causes Court, Pune seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of construction of permanent nature without landlord’s consent in writing and cause of damage to the existing structure. The Suit was resisted by Defendant by filing written statement denying that the structure was of permanent nature or was erected without permission. Defendant claimed that she merely repaired the existing structure, which was in dilapidated condition. She denied construction of toilet. She contended that the erstwhile owners of the property had permitted her to carry out repairs of substantial nature. That the structure on the land was quite old and required continuous and repeated repairs. That repairs were required to be carried out to the outhouse as well as to the old toilet. That there was already a porch made of temporary material, which was in dilapidated conditions and the Defendant merely repaired the same by putting up structures of temporary nature, which is easily removable. Defendant also contended that even after purchase of the structures by Plaintiff, permission was demanded from Mr. Talera on