High Court Restores Trial Court’s Findings in Eviction Dispute Over Alleged Permanent Structure by Tenant.


14-August-2025 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Dispute with Tenant/Landlord >> Property & Real Estate  

A long-standing tenancy dispute revolving around allegations of unauthorized construction by a tenant recently culminated in a significant ruling. The High Court in Rajendra Gangadhar Patil v/s Bhanuprakash Bherumal Khandelwal (since deceased) & Others, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, overturned the decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, and reinstated the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the landlords’ eviction suit. The decision reaffirms the principles that determine whether tenant-made alterations truly amount to “erection of permanent structures” under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act).

Background of the Case:

The dispute concerned premises located at Prabhadevi, Mumbai, where the applicant-tenant had been in occupation since 1952. After purchasing the property in 1967, the landlords alleged that the tenant, without consent, carried out structural alterations including:
  • enclosing a common veranda,
  • building a wooden mezzanine/loft in the kitchen, and
  • constructing an external water closet (WC).
They argued these amounted to unauthorized permanent structures justifying eviction.
 
 

The history of litigation dated back to 1971 when the landlords had earlier filed a similar eviction suit, which was resolved through consent terms. That agreement promised the tenant alternate accommodation in a proposed new building. However, even after the new structure was built, the landlords failed to allot the promised premises. This led to further disputes and subsequent litigation.

Proceedings Before Trial and Appellate Courts:

Trial Court: After evaluating evidence from both sides, the Trial Judge dismissed the eviction suit. The court concluded that the landlords failed to prove the existence of any “permanent structure” and observed that the alleged alterations, if any, were outside the demised premises.
Appellate Court: On appeal, the Appellate Bench reversed the decision and ordered eviction. It reasoned that the construction of the WC outside the tenanted premises constituted a permanent structure, relying in part on a municipal notice (Section 351 of the MMC Act) and the tenant’s application seeking regularization of the structure.
Aggrieved, the tenant approached the High Court in revision.

Arguments Advanced:

For the Tenant (Applicant):
  • The Appellate Bench overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing a well-reasoned Trial Court order without cogent evidence.
  • The WC had existed since long and could not be considered a permanent structure. Being an essential amenity, its removal would not cause lasting damage to the premises.
  • Reliance was placed on judicial precedents emphasizing that permanence must be assessed by factors such as removability, construction material, purpose, and durability.

For the Landlords (Respondents):

  • Findings of fact by the Appellate Bench should not be disturbed in a revisional proceeding.
  • The municipal notice under Section 351 and rejection of regularization by the Corporation supported the case of unauthorized permanent structure.
  • The Trial Court’s view that it had no jurisdiction over structures beyond the demised premises was contrary to judicial pronouncements.

High Court’s Analysis:

The Court carefully examined whether the WC constructed outside the tenanted unit could amount to a “permanent structure” under Section 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act. Key observations included:
  1. Tests for Permanence: Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that permanence must be judged by several tests—nature of construction, removability, annexation, durability, purpose, and attendant circumstances.
  2. Lack of Evidence: The landlords could not substantiate what materials were used in the WC’s construction, when it had been erected, or whether its removal would materially harm the premises.
  3. Essential Amenity: A WC being an essential facility for beneficial enjoyment of the premises, its mere existence could not be treated as an unlawful alteration of permanent nature.
  4. Reliance on Municipal Notice Not Enough: The issuance of a Section 351 notice or rejection of regularization could not, by themselves, prove permanency of the structure.
  5. Precedents: The Court found support in earlier rulings where minor structural changes providing better utility—such as bathrooms or partition walls—were held not to be “permanent structures.”

Decision:

The High Court held that the Appellate Bench erred in interfering with the Trial Court’s findings without adequate analysis of evidence. Since the essential requirements for establishing the erection of a permanent structure were not proven, the decree of eviction could not be sustained.

Final Order:

  1. Revisional application allowed.
  2. Appellate Court’s judgment and decree set aside.
  3. Trial Court’s dismissal of the eviction suit restored.
  4. No order as to costs.

Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the importance of strict evidentiary standards in eviction suits based on alleged unauthorized constructions. It reinforces that not every addition or alteration made by a tenant qualifies as a “permanent structure” under the Rent Act. Courts must apply established tests before categorizing a tenant’s changes as grounds for eviction. Moreover, essential amenities like bathrooms or WCs, if not shown to be newly or permanently constructed, are unlikely to meet this threshold.