VITHAL GOVIND MAMDAPURKAR Vs. SACHINDANAD VASUDEO TATKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellate Court declined to pass the decree in favour of the petitioner under Section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act) by passing order dated 30.11.1985 in Civil Appeal No.313 of 1982 and reversed the decree passed by T.C. THE same is under challenge in this Petition, filed under Art.227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit against the respondent for eviction from the suit premises which are situated on the first floor of House No.238, situate at Rasta Peth, Pune. Precisely, the premises were three rooms. It was the case of the petitioner that the Pune Municipal Corporation had issued two notices dated 4.11.1971 (Exhibit 61) for demolition of the suit premises to him and another to the respondent on 14.12.1971 (Ex.95). THErefore, he is entitled to get possession from the respondent under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was further contended that the respondent carried out certain repairs pursuant to the notice given to him by the Municipal Corporation at Ex.95. He had made certain constructions which amounted to erecting permanent structures and hence he is liable to be evicted under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is also pleaded that while making that permanent construction he has violated the provisions of Section 108(O) of the T.P.Act and hence, the petitioner is entitled to get a decree under Sec. 13(1)(a).

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was liable to be evicted for erecting permanent structure. He submitted that in para 5 of the plaint it has been mentioned that the respondent has carried out permanent construction by mentioning items 'a' to 'k'. However, both the Courts below have taken the view that except the items mentioned at 'a' & 'e', the rest were carried out by the respondent for the beneficial enjoyment of the suit premises and cannot be said to be of permanent nature and cannot fall within the scope of permanent structure. For example, they related to change in the door replacing it by window, etc.