There upon, the respondent tenant filed a civil revision applica tion.
The other evidence, according to the High Court,.
The appellate companyrt also took the question of digging and other relevant allegations.
Further in reply to the allegation of damage to the property, the respondent companypany had alleged that it had in fact improved the property of the appellant.
The said amendments were allowed in December, 1965.
The respondent also made an application for amendment to the effect that permanent structure had been made with the knowledge and companysent of the appellant.
121 of 1968.
2214 of 1954 mentioned hereinbefore was dismissed.
It was further alleged that in breach of the terms and companyditions of the agreement of tenancy and without the companysent of the lessor or the receiv er, the tenant had occupied portion of the land number let out to him by obstructing the lessor and the person entitled to use the same and had made companystruction on the roadway by obstructing and restricting the passage.
In the first place the cabins were made of wooden poles and planks fixed in the floor, and side walls of the building with nails, screws, nuts and bolts.
All the relevant factors had been borne in mind by the learned trial judge as well as appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes.
It was, inter alia, stated that the tenant had unauthorisedly companymitted several breaches of the terms and companyditions of the lease inasmuch as the tenant had erected unauthorised companystruction of a permanent nature and carried out additions to the demised premises without the companysent of the lessor or the receiver.
of the Divecha, DSilva, Kirtikar and Bhansali were number at all given proper and due weight.
Mesne profit from the date of the decree was also ordered.
As a result of analysis of these evidence and materials, the appellate companyrt companyfirmed the findings of the trial companyrt that the tenant had erected permanent structure on the demised premises without the landlords companysent and that was a breach of the terms of tenancy.
The High Court proceeded on the basis that the trial companyrt as well as the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court had relied wholly on the basis of evidence of the admission of one Mr. Pittie who had admitted that the landlord had knowledge of these factors.
On or about 8th Decem ber, 1965, the appellant made an application for amendment of the plaint to include change of user as an additional ground of eviction.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3/4th July, 1979 of the Bombay High Court in Spl.
On or about 31st March, 1967, the trial companyrt in suit number 1450/ 8318 of 1959, ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of permanent companystruction.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals, by special leave, by the landlords are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 3/4th July, 1979.
The matter on this issue went up before the appellate companyrt and the appellate companyrt dealt with this again and discussed these allegations.
They also upheld the finding that there was numberrenewal of the lease of the landlords and the tenants were number statutory tenants whose companytractual tenancy had companye to an end by efflux of time by the end of the period of ten years from 1st September, 1946.
M. Tarkunde and H.G. Advani, Hira Advani Kailash Vasudev, Joel Peres and D.N. Misra for the Respondents.
It also ordered mesne profit from the date of the suit and the monetary claims to the extent of arrears.
The tenant was called upon to remove the said unauthorised structures and restore the property, and it was further numberified that failing which the landlord would be companypelled to take proceedings.
On 1st December, 1958 a second numberice was issued on behalf of the original plaintiff number 1 calling upon the respondent to quit and vacate the premises in question on the grounds, inter alia, a unauthorised companystruction of permanent nature b obstructing roadways and c the damage to walls and floor, and further called upon them to remove the unauthorised companystruction and re store the suit premises to its original companydition.
It was further alleged that the tenant had unauthorisedly and without permission dug up and mutilated the floors of the premises let out to the tenant and had companystructed companytrary to the provisions of section 108 0 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Inasmuch as the main factual companytroversy in those appeals relate to the nature of the companystruction alleged to have been made by the tenant, it is relevant to set out what was stated in that letter.
These were durable for long and intended to be used permanently.
On or about 20th December, 1958, the advocate for the appellant replied to the above letter once again calling upon the respondent companypany to vacate the demised premises.
Such permanent structure was outside the tenancy and the landlord had number given any companysent.
The respondent tenant filed an application before the appropriate Rent Court for fixing the standard rent.
It was companytended that the demised premises in the lease was described as godown but it was taken in the nature of several office premises and the change in the improvement done to the same was merely for the better enjoyment of demised premises.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court observed that in judging whether the structures were perma nent or number, the following factors should be taken into companysideration referring to an unreported decision of Malvan kar J. in special civil application No.
The appellate companyrt came to the companyclusion that applying the proper test, the cabins were substantial struc tures and substantial improvement to the premises.
So far company structing lofts, it was held that these lofts had been companystructed after 1st September, 1946.
But these were number the sole tests.
In 1959, the standard rent application being R.A. No.
By 1953, the respondent companypany began to fall into arrears in payment of rent.
They also companyfirmed the finding of the trial companyrt that the respondents did number waive their rights arising out of these acts.
Two questions arise for companysideration in these appeals i whether the structure companystructed by the tenant in the premises in question amounted to permanent structure leading to the forfeiture of the tenancy of the tenant ii what is the scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution on questions of facts found by the appellate bench of Small Causes Court.
On 14th June, 1958, the advocate of the second appellant sent a numberice to the respondent tenant calling upon them to pay up the arrears for the period from September, 1956 to May, 1958 both months inclusive , as well as for earlier arrears of rent of Rs.20,850.
They upheld the decree for possession passed by the trial companyrt.
S. Nariman, Anil B. Diwan, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy and S. Dutt with for the Appellants.
There was an appeal to the appellate bench before the CoUrt of Small Causes and cross appeal being appeal number.
Ltd. on lease vide the registered lease dated 14th April, 1947 for a period of ten years companymencing from 1st September, 1946.
And in this companytext the companystruction of cabins and putting up of pillars were companysidered and the evidence in this respect was taken into companysideration.
The second appellant being plaintiff number 2 in the Original Suit leased out the premises involved herein being a godown measuring 11,500 sq.
at 156 A, Tardeo, Bombay 7.
Analysing all these evidence, the learned trial judge came to the companyclusion that permanent structures were carried out without the companysent in writing of the landlords or either of them.
The High Court ap plied these tests.
2052 of 1973 and 132 of 1974.
and other relevant factors and companye to a companyclusion.
The appellant filed a suit being suit number 1450/83 18 of 1959 on or about 31st July, 1959.
Judged in the aforesaid light on an analysis of the evidence the trial companyrt as well as the appellate companyrt had held that the structures were permanent.
By the judgment delivered on 14th June, 1973, the division bench of the Court of Small Causes companyfirmed the decree for eviction on the ground of permanent companystruction and granted eviction on change of user as well in the cross objection filed by the appellant.
C.A. Nos.
So had the Trial Court as well as the appellate bench of Court of Small causes.
195556 of 1980.
The said pre mises was given by the landlord to the tenant, the respond ent herein M s Bright Brothers Pvt.
The High Court referred to the different authorities on this point.
Being aggrieved therefrom, the appellants, the landlords have companye up in appeal to this Court.
A reply to the said numberice issued by the Court Receiver was sent on 8th December, 1958 from the respondent companypanys advocate saying that the companystruction companyplained of had taken place with the companysent and full knowledge of the appellant and the respondent companypany had spent thousands of rupees towards the improvement of the suit premises.
