BALASAHEB NANASAHEB GAIKWAD Vs. MANAKCHAND MURLIDHAR BORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 9-8-1974 passed by the District Judge, Ahmednagar in Appeal No. 76 of 1973 in the proceedings under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) The petitioners were the tenants in respect of the suit premises consisting of two rooms on the ground floor of the building bearing Municipal House No. 1003 situate in Ward No. 4, C.T.S. No. 814 at Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. Respondent No. 1 is the landlord of the suit premises. The landlord terminated the tenancy of the petitioners on the ground that the tenants had without his consent erected on the suit premises a permanent structure. The permanent structures complained of were three in number and they were an ota, a mori and a water cistern built in bricks, mortar and cement of the size of 3-1/4 long, 2-1/2 in width and 3 high. The landlord called upon tenants to quit and vacate the suit premises. The tenants having failed to comply with said requisition the landlord filed a suit being regular Civil Suit No. 111 of 1969 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri. Before the trial Court the grievance about the first structure viz. the ota was not pressed. The trial Court however held that the second structure complained of viz. the mori was not a permanent structure, but held that the water cistern i.e. the third structure was a permanent structure within the meaning of section 13(1)(b) of the said Act, and it was constructed without the consent of the landlord and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In appeal filed by the tenants the only question before the lower Appellate Court was whether the water cistern which was held to a permanent structure by the trial Court was so within the meaning of section 13(1)(b) of the said Act and whether it was constructed without the consent of the landlord. The lower Appellate Court after going through the evidence on record and considering the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides came to the conclusion that the said water cistern was a permanent structure within the meaning of the said provisions and there was no evidence to show that the tenants had taken any consent of the learned for constructing the same. In the result the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenants by confirming the finding of the lower Court. It is against this order dated 9-8-1974 passed by the Appellate Court that the present petition is filed.

(3.) Mr. Bhatia appearing for the petitioners-tenants relied upon several authorities in support of his contention that the conclusion that the conclusion of the Courts below that the said water cistern was a permanent structure was erroneous in law. He cited before me the following decision :- (1) 1943(2) All England Law Reports, 587, (2) A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 1, (3) 1931(2) Chenchery Division, 183, (4) 74 Bom.L.R. 220, (5) A.I.R. 1965 Cal. 408, (6) A.I.R. 1940 Mad 527, and (7) an unreported decision of Justice V.A. Naik in C.R.A. No. 1706 of 1962 decided on 22nd/23rd July, 1963. The decision reported (South Wales Aluminium Co. v. Assessment Committee for the North Assessment Area) 1943(2) A.E.L.R. 587, is on the interpretation of the words "buildings or structures" under the Plant and Machinery (Valuation for Rating) Order, 1927 issued under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925 and the decision reported (S.P.K.N. Subramanian Firm, Trichinapolly by Managing Partner S.P.K.N. Subramanian Chettar v. M. Chidambaram Servai) A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 527 is on the construction of the words "immovable property" under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. These decisions have obviously no relevance for the purposes of construction of the expression "permanent structure" in section 13(1)(b) of the said Act.