SAU. SUMAN RAMESH SAMANT v. SHRI ARUN R. PATIL
Eviction under Bombay Rent Act: Removal of Internal Walls Constitutes "Permanent Structure" Despite Lease Clause Permitting "Some Changes".
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:1860
Decision Date: 14-01-2026
List of Laws
The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Civil Procedure Code, 1908
- Facts: A landlady (Applicant) filed a suit seeking eviction of her tenant (Respondent) from the suit premises, which were initially partly residential and partly for running a hospital. The landlady alleged damages to the property, erection of permanent structures without permission, nuisance, and change of user. The tenant denied the allegations, stating that the changes were necessary for running the hospital and were done with the landlady's consent.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the landlady. The tenant appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision, dismissing the suit. The landlady then filed a Civil Revision Application before the High Court challenging the Appellate Court's judgment.
- Issue: Whether the tenant's actions, including the removal of internal walls and creation of a new entrance, constitute "damage" and "permanent structure" under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, warranting eviction, especially considering a clause in the lease agreement permitting some changes for converting the residential portion into a hospital.
- Holding: The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application in part, quashing the Appellate Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decree for eviction based on "damage" and "permanent structure" under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
- Reasoning: The High Court reasoned that the removal of internal walls and creation of a new entrance constituted a material alteration and a "permanent structure," requiring permission from both the landlady and the Municipal Corporation. The court emphasized that the clause in the lease agreement permitting "some changes" could not be interpreted as a blanket permission for making substantial structural alterations without explicit consent. The court found that the Appellate Court erred in equating tiling to prevent leakage with the complete removal of internal walls. The High Court held that the tenant's actions were contrary to Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and justified eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
🔒 For Members Only