Case Note & Summary
The case involves a tenant, Janardan Bhaurao Kelkar (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), who was a tenant of house No.208(1) at Malvan since 1963 at a monthly rent of Rs.50. The landlord, Mukund Laxmikant Mudras, filed Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 1994 seeking eviction under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, alleging that the tenant had constructed a septic tank and latrine of a permanent nature in the living room without permission, thereby forfeiting his tenancy. The tenant contended that the suit premises were about 100 years old, and in 1989 the Malwan Municipality directed conversion of basket latrines into septic latrines. He claimed that in November 1986, Rajaram Shirodkar, the landlord's power of attorney holder, executed an affidavit authorizing him to construct a new septic latrine and deduct the expenditure from rent. The tenant also stated that he suffered a heart attack in December 1993 and was hospitalized. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and decreed eviction. The High Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the construction was necessitated by municipal directions and that the tenant had implied consent from the landlord's representative. The court held that the construction of a septic tank and latrine, being a basic necessity and not a permanent alteration that changes the nature of the premises, does not fall under Section 13(1)(b) as a permanent structure causing forfeiture. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Forfeiture of Tenancy - Section 13(1)(b) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Construction of Permanent Structure - The tenant constructed a septic tank and latrine in the suit premises following municipal directions and with alleged consent of the landlord's power of attorney holder. The trial court dismissed the eviction suit, but the appellate court decreed it. The High Court held that the construction was not of a permanent nature so as to extinguish the tenancy, as it was necessitated by municipal requirements and the tenant had implied consent. The appellate court's judgment was set aside. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the construction of a septic tank and latrine by the tenant without express permission of the landlord amounts to a permanent structure causing forfeiture of tenancy under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's judgment dated 21 April 1998, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit.
Law Points
- Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- construction of permanent nature
- forfeiture of tenancy
- tenant's right to make improvements
- municipal directions
- implied consent
