ALISAHEB ABDUL LATIF MULLA Vs. ABDUL KARIM ABDUL REHMAN MULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises as is not uncommon, one of the vexed questions arising under the Bombay Rent Act, as to whether a particular work carried out by a tenant is a permanent structure within the meaning of Clause (b) of section 13, sub-section (1) which entitles a landlord to recover possession of premises where a tenant erects on the premises any permanent structure without the landlords consent given in writing. In the present case, it is nobodys case that the landlord had given his consent in writing to the work which was carried out. The only question is, whether the work which was done by the defendant-tenant, was an erection of a permanent structure or was as he calls it, a repair and something amounting to an improvement or in the nature of an improvement if at all.

(2.) The suit was filed by the landlord to recover possession from the petitioner-tenant on a number of grounds including that the landlord required the premises for his bona fide personal occupation. The only ground which succeeded in the Court however was the ground that the petitioner-tenant had erected a permanent structure, namely, a bathroom in the premises.

(3.) The view which the trial Court took of the work which was carried out by the petitioner-tenant, was that, it amounted to a new work considering that the work took about four days, it could not be treated as repairs. Considering the amount of expenses involved also, it was of the opinion, that the work amounted to a new permanent construction. It felt that this would involve also, some damage to the premises of the landlord. It was not artistic work that may be made for the purposes of beneficial and better enjoyment of the premises. He was of the view that it was a permanent construction "causing serious damage to the premises." He, therefore, held, that the plaintiff was entitled to possession.