The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Mrs. Binaifer Batiwala, challenging an eviction order issued by the Appellate Court. The dispute stemmed from the alleged construction of permanent structures on rental property without the landlord’s consent. The judgment delves into Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), assessing whether the structure constituted a "permanent" modification and if such unauthorized construction justified eviction.

1. Background of the Case:

• The landlord (Plaintiff) of the disputed bungalow claimed unauthorized construction by the tenant (Defendant) who allegedly expanded the space with a permanent structure.
• The Plaintiff contended this construction was against the tenancy terms under Section 16(1)(b) of the MRC Act.
• The tenant argued the structure was temporary and only a repair to the existing, dilapidated building.

2. Legal Issues Framed:

• Whether the construction constituted a "permanent structure" under Section 16(1)(b) of the MRC Act.
• Whether construction on non-tenanted land adjacent to the premises would justify eviction under the MRC Act.

3. Court Commissioner’s Findings:

• Appointed to inspect the structure, the Court Commissioner reported the extension as an enclosed room with cement flooring, asbestos sheets, and MS angles embedded in the earth.
• The report concluded that the structure was of a permanent nature, impacting the original building’s form and structure.

4. Trial and Appellate Court Decisions:

• The Trial Court initially dismissed the Plaintiff’s eviction request, stating the construction was temporary.
• The Appellate Court reversed this, categorizing the construction as permanent due to its durability and intention for long-term use.

Key Legal Provisions:

• Section 16(1)(b), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Allows landlords to seek eviction if the tenant constructs a permanent structure without consent.
• Section 108(o), Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Relates to the tenant’s obligation to prevent damage to the rental property.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court applied criteria for determining whether a structure is permanent, such as the durability, intention behind construction, and degree of annexation. The court found that the structure’s permanence, evidenced by its long-lasting materials and intended use as an additional room, fulfilled the conditions of Section 16(1)(b) under the MRC Act, justifying eviction.

Subjects:

Real Estate, Tenancy Law, Property Law

Permanent Construction, Unauthorized Modification, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Tenant Eviction, Bombay High Court