ORAL JUDGMENT

This petition seeks to assail the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.64 of 2014 rendered by the learned 10th Additional District Judge, Vadodara on 22/01/2018 decreeing the suit being Rent Suit No.236 of 2000 which was dismissed by the trial Court. The decree for eviction was ordered in appeal on the ground that the appellant had carried out the permanent alterations in the structure rented out to him.

2. On consideration of the rival submissions, it appears to this Court that it will be convenient to quote elaborate precise, concise, accurate and sound reasons assigned by the trial Court for dismissal of the suit; to understand whether view expressed by the trail Court was a possible view and whether appellate Court was justified in interfering with such a view in appeal.

<10. Issue No.4:

10.1. It must be noted here that the defendant has, in para-23 of his written statement vide Exh.10 stated that he reinstalled electric switch boards and electric line, as they were destroyed due to epidemic of termite. It also transpires that the defendant has made finishing work in the lofts and slab and filled cracks of the walls of suit premises. The defendant has also made necessary repairing work at the places, where rainy water enters into the suit premises. All such repairing works are nothing else, but tenantable repairs, and as such, they cannot be called permanent alterations made in the suit premises. However, the plaintiffs have not asked any question about any of above referred changes to the defendant during his crossexamination, therefore, the arguments of plaintiffs that all these works are permanent alterations in suit premises cannot be accepted.

The Ld. Advocate of defendant has, on this point, placed reliance on following authorities:

(1)Om Prakash Vs. Amar Singh and others reported in (1987) 1 SCC 458.

(2) Jayaben Tribhovan Mehta Vs. Manjulaben Anantray reported in 10 GLT 201.

(3) Bhavarlal Ganeshram Vs. Jasiben Wd/o. Ishwarlal Ramchand and Ors.

Reported in 2006(3) GLR 2230.

The ratio of principle laid down in all these authorities have been referred by me and I am of the confirmed opinion that these authorities have clear application to the present case on hand. As discussed earlier hereinabove, it is established that the defendant has not carried out any material alterations in the suit premises, nor made any changes which cannot be removed without causing serious damage to the suit premises. Moreover, no expert witness is examined by the plaintiffs to prove that whatever construction were made by the defendant are of permanent nature, removal of which can obviously damage the real structure of the suit premises.

10.2. In overall view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is clearly reflected that in order to substantiate an allegation of permanent construction, the plaintiffs side is poorly failed to bring on record any such material and whatever the work carried out by defendant in suit premises, is proved to be a work of tenantable repairs only, which may be carried out even if no consent is given by the landlord. Even apart from all the discussion made on this point hereinabove on merits, the witness of plaintiffs has made some most material admissions during his cross-examination carried out by defendant, which brush out the allegation of permanent construction and proves that the plaintiffs’ witness has no personal knowledge about the construction alleged to have been carried out by defendant.

The witness of plaintiffs has made following kinds of admissions in his cross-

examination vide Exh.38.

carrying out any such necessary tenantable repairs.

10.3. Even apart from the merits of the case of plaintiffs as discussed earlier hereinabove, the evidence of plaintiffs’ witness tendered vide Exh.38 does not seem to be acceptable, because the witness appears to be a Power of Attorney Holder of only present two plaintiffs since dt.5/3/2010. There is no evidence that plaintiffs’ witness has ever administer