PANDU MAHADU SANDIM Vs. DATTAJIRAO DADASAHEB PATANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd October, 1984 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Satara in Civil Appeal No.291/82. That appeal was filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 26.7.82 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Satara in Reg.Civil Suit No.355/1980. That civil suit was filed by the respondent. The respondent/plaintiff claimed in the suit that he is owner of the house No.881 at Shaniwar Peth, Satara and that one room on the ground floor of this suit house has been let out to the petitioner. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on several grounds, including that the tenant has constructed permanent structure on the suit premises without permission of the landlord. The trial court, however, recorded findings against the landlord on all the grounds and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the landlord, the appellate court, however, maintained the findings recorded by the trial court on the ground of default also on the ground that the conduct of the son of the tenant does not amount to nuisance or annoyance to the landlord as also on the ground that the landlord has failed to establish that he bonafide needs the suit premises for his own occupation. The appellate court, however, reversed the finding recorded by the trial court on the ground that the tenant has not erected a permanent structure on the suit premises and it held that the tenant has in fact erected a permanent structure on the suit premises without the consent of the landlord. In the result, therefore, the appeal was allowed. The judgment of the trial court was set aside and the suit filed by the landlord for a decree of eviction against the tenant was decreed in favour of the landlord and the tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises. Therefore, it this judgment of the appellate court, which is challenged in the present petition filed by the present petitioner-tenant.

(2.) THE only contention that is urged before me by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that it was the case of the landlord that only one room from the suit house was let out to the petitioner and that there was open space near this room and it is on this open space that the petitioner has constructed a shed. It was the case of the landlord that this shed is of permanent nature and that as been erected without the permission of the landlord. The learned counsel submitted that, therefore, it was the case of the landlord that the tenant has erected permanent structure on the open space of land, which was not let out to the tenant by the landlord. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to show that the tenant becomes liable for a decree of eviction against him under section 13(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord has to establish that the tenant has without his consent in writing, erected any permanent structure on the suit premises. The learned counsel submitted that, therefore, the allegation must be that tenant has erected permanent structure on the premises which have not been let out to him. In the submission of the learned counsel, as admittedly, the construction has been raised on the open space of land, which was not let out to the tenant, the tenant would not be liable for a decree of eviction against him under section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is clear from the judgment of the appellate court that it was a clear finding that has been recorded by the appellate court that a permanent structure has been erected by the tenant on the land which was not leased out to him. This was also the case of the landlord. It was clear from the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) that the landlord has to establish that the permanent structure has been erected by the tenant on the suit premises. Perusal of the definition of the term "premises" shows that the premises means any land not being used for agricultural purposes, any building or part of a building let or given on licence separately. Thus in order to show that any land should amount to premises within the meaning of the Act, it must be shown that the land has been let out or given on licence separately. In the present case, as it was the case of the landlord himself that the land on which alleged permanent structure has been erected by the tenant was never let out to the tenant, the tenant would not be liable for a decree of eviction against him under section 13(1)(b) of the Act.