Unauthorized Alterations Constitute Permanent Structures”: Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Decree for Rent Default, Injury to Premises, and Erection of Permanent Structures Without Consent

Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application filed by the tenants, upholding the eviction decree issued by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. The court confirmed that the tenants had defaulted in rent payments, caused injury to the suit premises, and erected permanent structures without the landlord’s consent, as per Sections 108(o) and 13(1)(a) & (b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

Facts of the Case:
The suit premises, a shop located in Sadashiv Peth, Pune, had been leased to the tenants by the landlords who purchased the property in 1979. The tenants had operated a business from the premises since 1960. The landlords sought eviction on the grounds of non-payment of rent from 1991, injury and destruction to the premises, and the unauthorized erection of permanent structures.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the landlords in 2011, and the District Court upheld this decree in 2018. The tenants, challenging the decisions, filed a Civil Revision Application with the High Court.

Issues:

1. Whether the tenants defaulted in the payment of rent.
2. Whether the tenants caused injury or destruction to the premises under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. Whether the tenants erected permanent structures without the landlord’s consent under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The tenants argued that the demand notice issued on 25 October 1999 was invalid as it did not specify the exact amount of education cess and other increases.
2. They contended that they had deposited adequate amounts toward the rent and thus, were not in arrears.
3. They further argued that the changes made to the shop, including the installation of racks and a rolling shutter, did not amount to permanent structures or cause injury to the premises.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The landlords asserted that the tenants failed to pay the rent as demanded in the notice, including arrears from 1991.
2. They claimed that the tenants caused injury to the premises by making significant alterations, including constructing a platform (Ota) and showcases without permission.
3. The landlords maintained that the tenants had violated the terms of tenancy by erecting permanent structures inside and outside the shop.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Rent Default: The court held that the tenants were in default for not paying the rent and other increases within the stipulated time. Although the tenants argued that they had deposited certain amounts, the court found that they had not fully complied with the notice requirements.
2. Injury to Premises: The court agreed with the landlords that the tenants had caused injury to the suit premises by making unauthorized alterations, including the construction of an Ota (platform) and the installation of showcases and a rolling shutter.
3. Permanent Structures: The court found that the alterations made by the tenants, particularly the construction of the platform and installation of showcases, constituted permanent structures, which were erected without the landlords’ consent, violating Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court dismissed the tenants’ revision application and upheld the eviction decree. The court ruled that the tenants had defaulted in rent payments, caused injury to the premises, and erected permanent structures without the required consent, warranting eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.