1982 decreed the suit uphold ing, inter alia, that the tenant had made alterations of permanent nature in the demised premises and had companymitted acts of waste and damage.
In the premises the High Courts judgment and order dated 28th of November, 1986 impugned in this appeal re stored the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the re spondents suit for possession.
The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court had held that the suit was barred under article 113 of the Limitation Act which prescribed a period of 3 years while the High Court held that articles 66 or 67 was applicable which prescribed a period of 12 years.
The same was allowed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 28th September, 1985 and the respondents suit for eviction was dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by lapse of time under article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 hereinafter called the Limitation Act .
1326/4557 of 1979 against the tenant in the Small Causes Court, Bombay for possession of the demised premises.
In 1979 the landlord filed R.A.E. Suit No.
5391 And 55 15 of 1985.
The Trial Court on 11th November.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.1986 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and the High Court, however, differed on the question of limitation.
On the basis of those and other allied allegations on the 20th of September, 1978 the landlord, respondent herein, gave a numberice to quit to the tenant, the appellant herein, on the ground that the tenant had 1 made alterations of permanent nature in respect of the demised premises, 2 companymitted acts of waste and damage and 3 changed the user of the premises.
The High Court of Bombay on 28th of November, 1986 allowed the writ petition being Writ Petition No.
Several other breaches were alleged to have been companymitted in re spect of the terms of tenancy.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is by the tenant from the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 28th of November, 1986.
5515 of 1985 filed by the tenant.
The High Court allowed the said Writ Petition filed by the landlord and dismissed the Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.
the prohibition prescribed under section 13 1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter re ferred to as the Rent Act , the tenant had indulged in several acts of companymission by which number only there has been permanent alterations of major nature but the entire struc ture was companypletely changed so much so that even the height of the structure was increased and thus, the loft lost its initial character and became almost as a first floor which was the creation of the appellant tenant herein.
It was alleged that the tenant had indulged in the acts of waste and damage to the property and that further she had changed the user of the suit premises when some of the employees started residing there.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
667 of 1982 was filed by the tenant against the decree of the Trial companyrt.
16 in Fanaswadi area of Bombay.
Aggrieved by the said decision Appeal No.
The tenant was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs.
All the three companyrts have held that the tenant, appel lant herein, had made alterations of permanent nature and had companymitted acts of waste and damage.
The premises companysisted of the entire structure on the ground floor with a loft companyering the entire area with companyrugated iron sheets.
116117 of 1987.
105.60 for the purpose of companyducting ice cream business which was being carried on by her husband who was the holder of the power of attorney on her behalf.
C. Tunara, M.N. Shroff, A.G. Parekh and K.M.K. Khan for the Respondent.
S. Nariman, R.F. Nariman, Ashok Goel, Rajan Karanjawa la and Ejaz Mazbool for the Appellant.
The letting was done on an agreement dated 29th of December, 1975 which was to become effective from the 1st of January, 1976.
5391 of 1985 filed by the landlord under Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court.
