SADGURU CATERERS Vs. HASHMATBI ABDULKADAR SHAKH SHAHIDABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To state in brief, the present petitioners are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendants had taken the suit property on rent under a lease deed dated 30.3.1970 from one Abdul Sattar Haji, who was the owner of the said property. The building was taken on rent for running a hotel and lodge. The original landlord Abdul Sattar expired and after his death, Hashmatbi, who was the legal heir of the original landlord, filed the suit for eviction and possession against the defendants. The main contention of the plaintiff was that the defendants had made additions and alterations of permanent nature in the building which was taken on rent and, therefore, they are liable to be evicted under the Bombay Rents, Boarding & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, "Bombay Rent Act").

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants contending that as per the terms of the lease deed, there is no complete prohibition from making any additions and alterations of permanent nature, but if by making additions and alterations of permanent nature in the building, the defendants would cause some damage to the building, the landlord could claim compensation. It was contended that due to certain additions made by the defendants, no such damage was caused to the building and, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim compensation. In any case, in view of the specific clause for the compensation on account of damage caused to the building,the landlord could not claim decree for eviction and possession. It was also contended on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff, Hashmatbi is not the sole owner of the suit property leased out to the defendants. There are some other persons also who are co-owners of the property. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

(3.) After hearing the evidence for both the parties, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property and, therefore, the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. While interpreting clause (e) of the lease deed, the learned trial Court held that the said clause has three parts. In the first part, the tenant is entitled to make additions and alterations of temporary nature for using the property for the purpose of business. In the second part, there was complete prohibition against making any additions and alterations of permanent nature. In the third part there is provision that if such addition and alteration in damage to the building, the landlord to claim compensation. Having interpreted the said clause, the trial Court came to the conclusion that under the provisions of Section 13(1)(b), when the tenant has made any additions or alterations of permanent nature, without prior permission or consent of the landlord in writing, the landlord is entitled to seek decree for eviction and possession. With these findings, the suit came to be decreed against the defendants. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the defendants in Civil Appeal No.308 of 2006. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the defendants have preferred the present Revision Application.