(1.)This is tenant's appeal by special leave. Though the appeals are three in number the subject matter is one common judgment and therefore, the three are being treated as one appeal. The suit premises are situated in the city of Pune and governed by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter "the Act" for short). The suit premises are admittedly owned by respondent no. 1 and are held in tenancy by the appellant. Proceedings for eviction of the appellants were initiated on very many grounds At this stage, we are concerned only with the ground of eviction available under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act, which provides that a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the court is satisfied that the tenant has, without the landlord's consent given in writing,, erected on the premises any permanent structure.
(2.)Incidentally, it may be stated that the suit premises where initially owned by one dattaraya Chiplunkar, who died in the year 1974 and his widow, having succeeded to the rights in the property, transferred the same to the respondent no. 1 in the year 1978. The appellant came in the possession of the premises sometime in the year 1961 having acquired the tenancy rights from his predecessor in interest - one puram, who in turn had succeeded the tenancy rights from one Shri Niwas Patki, who was inducted as tenant in the year 1941 by chiplunkar.
(3.)It is not disputed that in the year 1961, the tenant-appellant has raised a permanent structure over the tenancy premises. The structure raised by the appellant consists of a dinning hall, a kitchen and lavatory. According to the landlord-respondent no. 1, the said construction was carried out without obtaining consent of the landlord and without having the building plans sanctioned by the municipal corporation The plea taken by the appellant in the written statement is one of denial of the ground. Insofar as the consent of the landlord to the alleged construction is concerned, the tenant pleaded -"abutting to the road these defendants have constructed a building for restaurant in the year 1961. For that purpose the defendants 1 and 2 have taken a prior sanction of the Pune Municipal Corporation and also the owner Shri chiplunkar". The trial court found the ground for eviction not made out. On an appeal preferred by the landlord-respondents, the decree of the trial court was reversed. In the opinion of the appellate court, the ground for eviction under section 13 (1) (b) of the Act was made out. The aggrieved tenant preferred a petition under article 227 of the Constitution in the High court of Bombay, which has been dismissed.