Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, was inducted into a suit premises comprising a room (14' x 14') with two tin sheet walls and a tin shed (9' x 9') at a monthly rent of Rs.3. The tenant approached the landlord to carry out repairs, but the landlord applied to the Khopoli Municipal Council on 16 May 1980 for permission to replace two tin sheets with a wall, which was declined. Despite this, the tenant on his own demolished the entire premises and constructed a new brick and masonry structure with a new plinth. The landlord filed a suit for eviction, which was decreed by the trial court on 28 September 1984. The tenant's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Raigad on 24 October 1990. Aggrieved, the tenant filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the tenant's act of demolishing the entire structure and erecting a new one without the landlord's consent constituted material alteration and waste, resulting in forfeiture of tenancy under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court further held that under Article 227, it could not re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they were perverse or without jurisdiction, which was not the case. The petition was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Transfer of Property Act - Forfeiture of Tenancy - Material Alteration - Section 108(o) - Tenant demolished entire suit premises (a room and tin shed) and constructed a new brick and masonry structure with new plinth without landlord's consent - Held that such act constitutes material alteration and waste, resulting in forfeiture of tenancy - Landlord entitled to eviction (Paras 1-5). B) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Both trial court and appellate court found tenant guilty of unauthorized demolition and reconstruction - Held that High Court under Article 227 cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings unless perverse or without jurisdiction - No such infirmity found (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's act of demolishing the entire suit premises and constructing a new structure without the landlord's consent amounts to material alteration and forfeiture of tenancy, and whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court that the tenant had materially altered the premises by demolishing and reconstructing without consent, resulting in forfeiture of tenancy.
Law Points
- Tenant cannot unilaterally demolish and reconstruct tenanted premises without landlord's consent
- Material alteration of tenanted premises amounts to forfeiture of tenancy
- Section 108(o) of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882 imposes duty on tenant to not commit waste or alteration without landlord's consent
- Article 227 of Constitution of India confers limited supervisory jurisdiction on High Court
- not to re-appreciate evidence
