Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Temporary or removable structures are generally not classified as construction if they can be easily removed without causing substantial damage to the property. The key factors include the ease of removal, the absence of embedding in the earth, and the lack of substantial alteration to the structure or character of the premises. ["Samitri Devi VS Karam Singh - Punjab and Haryana"]
The courts have consistently held that structures such as wooden roofs, partition walls, iron jungalas, temporary walls, and similar constructions that are not embedded or permanently fixed are not considered permanent structures. The removability without damage is a crucial criterion. For example, a wooden loft, temporary kitchen, bathroom, or partition wall was deemed not to constitute material alterations because they are temporary and easily removable. ["Anil Joginder Sachdev VS Balasaheb Hiralal Zad - Bombay"], ["MRS. BINAIFER BATIWAL @ BINAIFER LOVJI MALEGAM vs KADAMBAGIRI ESTATES PVT. LTD. - Bombay"], ["MRS. BINAIFER BATIWAL @ BINAIFER LOVJI MALEGAM vs KADAMBAGIRI ESTATES PVT. LTD. - Bombay"], ["Ghanshyam VS Sardarmal - Rajasthan"], ["Saiyad Rasulmiya Nathumiya VS Nawarsaheb Shri Mahmad Sai Amatkhanji Bali - Gujarat"]
The presence of embedding in the earth or permanent fixtures like bricks, cement, or embedded pillars tends to indicate a permanent structure. Conversely, structures resting on loose pillars or not embedded, which can be dismantled and removed without damage, are regarded as temporary. For instance, structures resting on pillars not embedded in the ground or with no foundation dug are considered temporary. ["RAMJI VIRJI VS KADARBHAI ESUFALI - Gujarat"], ["A1Engineering Works VS Rajendra Kasturchand Vora - Current Civil Cases"], ["MAYANKKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL vs C RAJNIKANT & CO - Gujarat"], ["M/S INDUS TOWERS LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA - Karnataka"], ["M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER, CGST APPEALS-1 DELHI - Delhi"]
The courts emphasize that the intention of the parties, the purpose of the structure, and whether the structure causes substantial or permanent change in the character of the premises are relevant. If the structure can be dismantled or removed without causing serious damage or altering the premises' fundamental character, it is not deemed permanent. ["Hemant Bharat Kachare VS Vasu Anna Shetty - Bombay"], ["Manindra Nath Mitra VS Ajit Kumar Ghosh - 1989 0 Supreme(Cal) 251"], ["SUNDER LAL BHATIA VS ONKAR NATH SAXENA - Allahabad"], ["Kempraj VS Krishnappa and Others - Madras"], ["MAYANKKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL VS C. RAJNIKANT and CO. - Gujarat"]
The Permanency Test is frequently applied, where structures that can be dismantled and relocated without damage are classified as temporary or movable. This includes structures fastened loosely, not embedded, or with no foundation dug. The courts also consider the nature of annexation—if it is not for permanent attachment, it is likely temporary. ["00600055733"], ["MAYANKKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL vs C RAJNIKANT & CO - Gujarat"], ["RAMJI VIRJI VS KADARBHAI ESUFALI - Gujarat"], ["M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER, CGST APPEALS-1 DELHI - Delhi"]
Analysis and Conclusion:Judgments consistently establish that a structure not embedded in the earth, easily removable, and capable of being dismantled without causing substantial damage does not constitute construction in the legal sense of permanence. The main points are the ease of removal, the absence of embedding or fixed fixtures, and the lack of substantial alteration to the premises' character. These factors collectively determine that such structures are temporary or movable, and thus do not fall under the definition of construction as a permanent or immovable fixture.
In landlord-tenant disputes, a common flashpoint is whether alterations or additions by tenants amount to 'construction' that could lead to eviction under rent control laws. Many tenants wonder: find judgments where it has been held that a temporary or removable structure, not embedded in the earth and capable of removal without substantial damage does not constitute construction? This question strikes at the heart of distinguishing temporary fixes from permanent changes.
Indian courts have repeatedly clarified that not every structure qualifies as 'construction'—especially those that are easily removable without harming the property. This blog dives into key legal findings, case illustrations, and practical insights, drawing from established judgments. Note: This is general information based on precedents; consult a legal professional for advice specific to your situation.
Courts consistently hold that structures easily removable without damage to the main building or ground are temporary and do not amount to permanent or immovable construction under statutes like rent control acts. The classification hinges primarily on:
As one judgment notes: The material used in the construction or the mode of joining together of its constituent parts is thus not the deciding factor. It is also immaterial whether the structure raised is of a temporary or permanent nature, or whether it can be removed without causing any damage to the building. Raj Rani Kapoor VS Bhupinder Singh - 1986 0 Supreme(All) 961
This principle protects tenants making practical, non-destructive changes while safeguarding landlords from irreversible alterations.
Judges emphasize physical removability. In a key case, a partition wall of masonite with a wooden frame was deemed non-permanent: A partition wall of masonite with a wooden frame was easily removable and did not cause any damage to the premises. The brick pillar was constructed to support the upper part of the wall after the lower part was removed... The pillar was not embedded in the floor or fixed to the ceiling and could be removed without causing serious damage. Ramchand Motumal VS Tahilram Dwarkadas - 1976 0 Supreme(Guj) 141
Similarly, bamboo sticks and palm leaves structures, not intended permanently, escaped classification as offending construction Uttam Sadda VS State Of Punjab - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 5. Courts apply a multi-factor test including intention, annexation mode, and durability, but stress: structures easily removable and not fixed permanently are not construction of a permanent nature. Manindra Nath Mitra VS Ajit Kumar Ghosh - 1989 0 Supreme(Cal) 251
Intention is probed: The real criteria is whether the construction was intended to be retained forever or demolished after achieving certain objects. ATUL CHANDRA LAHIRY VS SONATAN DAW - 1961 0 Supreme(Cal) 42 The lessee's intent and construction nature determine status Krishnawati Devi VS Sugia - 1986 0 Supreme(All) 356. Lightweight, detachable materials—even large—stay temporary if removable without damage DELTA COMMUNICATIONS VS STATEOF KERALA - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 848.
Not all additions qualify as temporary. Courts deem structures permanent if they involve embedding, welding, or substantial changes:
Vertical and horizontal members welded together, with verticals embedded in flooring, cannot be dismantled easily without damage: As the verticle member and horizontal member are welded together and verticle members are embedded in the flooring, the structure in question cannot be a temporary structure as it cannot be dismantled and shifted easily without causing damage to the flooring and the structure. A-1 Engineering Works VS Rajendra Kasturchand Vora - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 703
Platforms needing gas cutters to dismantle, with vertical members dug from concrete foundations, show permanence and intent to alter premises character permanently A-1 Engineering Works VS Rajendra Kasturchand Vora - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 703.
Cement-based changes substantially altering shops diminish utility: The construction having been made by using cement etc. is obviously in the nature of a permanent construction/alteration. YUSUF ALI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 2012 Supreme(All) 2946
Verandas converted to rooms via embedded constructions impair value if removal is difficult or damages land Harjit Kaur VS Sant Ram - 2002 Supreme(P&H) 1250.
These cases highlight exceptions: durable materials, foundations, or permanence intent tip the scale Manoramabai W/o Vishwanath Limaye VS Pramila Vijay - 2011 Supreme(Bom) 193. Even temporary-looking builds fail if they tends to make changes in the accommodation on a permanent basis or harm the structure Manoramabai W/o Vishwanath Limaye VS Pramila Vijay - 2011 Supreme(Bom) 193.
Under GST contexts, non-embedded systems like solar panels aren't immovable property or works contracts, reinforcing removability tests: things attached to the earth would be immoveable property, but not if easily movable Sterling & Wilson Private Limited vs Joint Commissioner, (State Tax) and Appellate Authority (State Tax) Commercial Tax Department - 2025 Supreme(AP) 384.
Non-Permanent: Asbestos sheds or grills on verandahs, easily removable without affecting form, aren't material alterations MD. IDRIS, MD. IDRIS ALI VS ANIL KUMAR DE - 2002 Supreme(Cal) 9. Temporary partitions or business-use enclosures (e.g., saw-mill rooms) on vacant land, not deeply embedded, don't impair value Harjit Kaur VS Sant Ram - 2002 Supreme(P&H) 1250.
Eviction Risks: Nuisance via non-permanent builds still grounds eviction, even if not 'construction' Manoramabai W/o Vishwanath Limaye VS Pramila Vijay - 2011 Supreme(Bom) 193.
Courts urge evidence-based assessment: expert reports, photos, and admissions prove or disprove permanence A-1 Engineering Works VS Rajendra Kasturchand Vora - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 703.
To avoid disputes:
Authorities should evaluate based on physical evidence, not size alone. Tenants: Ensure changes enhance utility without permanence. Landlords: Inspect for embedding or damage potential.
In summary, legal precedents protect reversible changes while penalizing those altering property essence. Stay informed, document diligently, and seek tailored advice to navigate tenancy laws effectively.
This post summarizes judgments for educational purposes and is not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction; professional consultation recommended.
#TemporaryConstruction #RentControlLaw #TenantRights
It was not pleaded by the landlord that the structure was firmly embedded in the earth and its removal at a subsequent point of time would damage her property. ... It is to be noted that pillars and six feet high wall constructed by the tenant are not shown to have been embedded in the earth. The roof made by logs of wood and rafters is easily removable without any damage to the ....
(ii) a temporary structure which can easily be removed without causing damage to the building/structure would not attract forfeiture of tenancy. (iii) substantial damage to the structure/building must be proved in addition to diminishing its value. ... A temporary construction made on a temporary basis that does not ordinarily harm a structure ....
is held to be removable by both the Courts. ... Removability of the structure without causing any damage to the building is yet another test that can be applied while deciding the nature of the structure. ... structure without causing any damage to the building, (iv) durability of the structure, (v) intention of the party who puts up the structure and (vi) the purpose for which the struc....
Without prejudice, he would submit that the structure described by Plaintiff is not of permanent nature. That it is merely temporary structure, which is easily removable without causing any damage or injury to the suit premises. ... Bodh Mal [1969 All LJ 477] a Division Bench of the High Court held that temporary construction made by a tenant in the shape of kitchen and bathroom did not#....
Without prejudice, he would submit that the structure described by Plaintiff is not of permanent nature. That it is merely temporary structure, which is easily removable without causing any damage or injury to the suit premises. ... Bodh Mal [1969 All LJ 477] a Division Bench of the High Court held that temporary construction made by a tenant in the shape of kitchen and bathroom did not#....
The entire structure was a wooden structure which is admittedly resting on the four pillars which are also not embedded in the floor. The floor may be plastered by the cement but the whole annexation is so loose that this wooden structure would be easily removable. ... That is why the Explanation enacts 3 fiction by adding a clarification that the alterations as specified by the Legislature which are easily removable without serious damage#....
As the vertical member and horizontal member are welded together and vertical members are embedded in the flooring, the structure in question cannot be temporary structure as it cannot be dismantled and shifted easily without causing damage to the flooring and the structure. ... He submitted that the entire structure can be dismantled and removed without causing any damage to the main structure of....
... As the verticle member and horizontal member are welded together and verticle members are embedded in the flooring, the structure in question cannot be a temporary structure as it cannot be dismantled and shifted easily without causing damage to the flooring and the structure. ... He submitted that the entire structure can be dismantled and removed without causing any damage to the main structure#HL_E....
The partition wall may be restored to its original condition without causing any substantial damage to the suit premises. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a permanent structure. ... 14. ... Alterations made by a tenant like constructing a loft, wooden bath-room, and putting up of a new drain being minor alterations which are easily removable without causing any serious damage to the premises do not fall w....
The materials used in raising of structure are all easily removable without any damage. Though the floor is cemented, but it is for the purpose of convenient user and not with an intention to make the structure permanent. ... Issue 1 was decided by holding that Gumti and restaurant etc. constitute a temporary structure. ... The concrete slab was a permanent feature of the demised premises and could not be easily re....
33. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Solid and Correct Engineering Works, had set out the guidelines for deciding whether property would be moveable or immoveable. In the passage extracted above, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, after considering the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, had held that things attached to the earth would be immoveable property. However, Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act clarifies that this term would apply to trees and shrubs; buildings or goods embedded in the eart....
The construction having been made by using cement etc. is obviously in the nature of a permanent construction/alteration. Putting a temporary partition wall removable without any damage to existing structure may not result in diminishing the utility of two shops but where the construction has been made which is of permanent nature by taking out existing construction making substantial change in the existing shop etc., it is for the tenant to establish that it has not diminished or utility of building is disfigured.
One of the tests laid down is to consider whether the alleged permanent construction tends to make changes in the accommodation on a permanent basis. A temporary construction made on a temporary basis that does not ordinarily harm a structure of the building and can be easily removed without causing damage to the building is not regarded as a permanent structure or an offending alteration. Whether the party intended to make a construction of a permanent nature or not is also relevant.
In Narain Singhs case (supra), the Court was considering conversion, of a veranda into a room. Such construction is only for proper running of business of saw-mill. There is no evidence that such construction is embedded in earth to such an extent which will make its removal difficult or such construction has damaged the surface of the land to such an extent that it cannot be restored to its original position. Such temporary construction is for proper utilisation of the land and has been rightly found by the appellate authority as not causing material impairment of the valu....
Act, 1952 held that the nature of construction, whether they are permanent or temporary, is a relevant consideration in determining the question of 'material alteration'. In the said case the verandah of the suit premises was covered with asbestos shed fixing some grills and there was allegation of conversion of two rooms into four. It was also 'held that a permanent construction tends to make changes in the accommodation on a permanent basis, while a temporary construction is on temporary basis which do not ordinarily affect form or structure of the building, as it can easily be r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
