HEADNOTE
Sau. Suman Ramesh Samant v. Shri Arun R. Patil
Court: Bombay High Court
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice M. M. Sathaye
Date of Judgment: January 14, 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:1860
Laws / Sections Involved:
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(g), 13(1)(k);
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 108(o);
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 115
Keywords: Bombay Rent Act eviction, permanent structure, damage to premises, hospital tenant, Section 13(1)(b), civil revision
Summary
The Bombay High Court partly allowed a civil revision application filed by a landlady and restored an eviction decree against a tenant running a hospital, holding that removal of internal walls and creation of a new entrance without the landlord’s and municipal permission amounts to erection of a permanent structure and damage to premises under the Bombay Rent Act. While affirming concurrent findings rejecting eviction on grounds of nuisance, change of user, and bona fide requirement, the Court found the appellate court’s approach to Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) to be perverse. The Court ruled that contractual permission to make “some changes” cannot override statutory protections or amount to blanket consent for material alterations. The tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession, with limited time granted subject to an undertaking.
Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court partly allowed Civil Revision Application No. 285 of 2007 and set aside the appellate court judgment insofar as it rejected eviction on the grounds of damage to premises and erection of permanent structure. The Court restored the trial court’s eviction decree under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, while affirming rejection of other grounds. The tenant was directed to vacate the premises, with six weeks’ time granted subject to filing an undertaking.
Facts
The landlady owned premises admeasuring about 2,546 sq. ft. at Dombivli, part of which was initially let for residential use and the remaining for running a hospital. Alleging extensive alterations, demolition of walls, fixing of tiles, installation of air-conditioning equipment, creation of a new entrance, nuisance, and unauthorised change of user, the landlady sought eviction under multiple provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed eviction on grounds of damage and permanent structure. However, the appellate court reversed the decree, prompting the landlady to approach the High Court.
Issues
The key issues were whether the tenant’s acts amounted to (i) damage to the suit premises and use without due care under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, and (ii) erection of a permanent structure under Section 13(1)(b), despite a contractual clause permitting certain changes for hospital use.
Petitioner’s arguments
The landlady argued that the appellate court ignored clear admissions of the tenant regarding demolition of internal walls and creation of a new entrance without permission. It was contended that contractual consent to make “some changes” could not be construed as blanket permission for material alterations or permanent structures. Reliance was placed on municipal notices and settled law that statutory grounds of eviction cannot be diluted by private contract.
Respondent’s arguments
The tenant contended that alterations were necessary for running a hospital and were undertaken with the landlady’s consent under the lease. It was argued that tiling, installation of air-conditioners, and internal changes did not diminish the value of the property or constitute permanent structures. The tenant also relied on concurrent findings rejecting eviction on other grounds, urging limited interference in revision.
Analysis of the law
The Court analysed Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. It reiterated that while minor internal works for better enjoyment may not attract eviction, demolition of internal walls and alteration of sanctioned plans without permission crosses the threshold into permanent structural change and damage. Statutory protections, the Court held, cannot be contracted out by broad or vague clauses in lease agreements.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on settled principles that “permanent structure” includes material alterations affecting the identity or plan of premises, and that landlord consent must be clear, specific, and lawful. It also reaffirmed that municipal inaction does not legitimise unauthorised structural changes for the purpose of rent control legislation.
Court’s reasoning
Justice M. M. Sathaye noted the tenant’s admissions that walls were removed and a new entry was created without permission and without engaging an architect or engineer. Such acts required both landlord and municipal approval. The appellate court, the High Court held, perversely equated minor repairs with major structural alterations and wrongly diluted the statutory ground of eviction under Section 13(1)(b).
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the tenant’s actions amounted to damage and erection of permanent structure, justifying eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The appellate court judgment was set aside to that extent, and the trial court’s eviction decree was restored.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that tenants cannot rely on general contractual permissions to justify substantial structural alterations, especially in regulated tenancies. It clarifies the boundary between permissible repairs and impermissible permanent structures, offering important guidance for landlord–tenant disputes involving commercial or hospital use of residential premises.
Case law references
• Anil Joginder Sachdev v. Balasaheb Hiralal Zad (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2961)
Holding: Structural alterations without requisite permissions can constitute permanent structures.
Application: Relied upon to assess unauthorised alterations.
• Principles under Section 13(1)(b), Bombay Rent Act
Holding: Statutory protection against permanent structures cannot be waived by contract.
Application: Applied to reject blanket consent argument.
FAQs
Q1. Do internal changes for running a hospital amount to permanent structure?
Minor repairs may not, but demolition of walls and creation of new entrances without permission do amount to permanent structure.
Q2. Can lease clauses override eviction provisions of the Bombay Rent Act?
No. Statutory grounds of eviction cannot be contracted out by private agreement.
Q3. Did the Court accept other eviction grounds?
No. Eviction was confirmed only on grounds of damage and permanent structure, not on nuisance, change of user, or bona fide requirement.