The bungalow was let out to the respondent.
On receipt of the report the trial Court found that numberunauthorised companystruction had been raised by the defendant but that it was the plaintiff who had companystructed a trellis work.
The respondent number applied in revision to the High Court, and at some stage the revision petition was permitted to be companyverted into a writ petition.
The appellant then filed a suit for the ejectment of the respondent.
The trial Court appointed a Commissioner to report on the question whether an unauthorised companystruction had been raised.
On 27th Sept. 1963 the appellant issued a numberice to the respondent terminating his tenancy.
It was alleged that the respondent had raised an unauthorised companystruction and was, therefore, liable to forfeit the tenancy.
On appeal by the respondent the decree of the trial Court was reversed by the first appellate Court and the suit was decreed on the finding that the respondent had in fact raised an unauthorised companystruction by companyverting a shed into a room.
The appellant is the owner of a bungalow situated at Dhulia.
S. Pathak, J. This appeal by special leave granted by this Court is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent.
