vil Appeal No 195556 of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 34th July 1979 of the Bombay High Court in Spl
CA Nos
2052 of 1973 and 132 of 1974
FS Nariman Anil B Diwan PH Parekh Ms Lata Krishnamurthy and section Dutt with for the Appellants
VM Tarkunde and HG Advani Hira Advani Kailash Vasudev Joel Peres and DN Misra for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
These appeals by special leave by the landlords are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 34th July 1979
Two questions arise for consideration in these appeals i whether the structure constructed by the tenant in the premises in question amounted to permanent structure leading to the forfeiture of the tenancy of the tenant ii what is the scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution on questions of facts found by the appellate bench of Small Causes Court
In order to appreciate these questions it is necessary to reiterate the relevant facts
The second appellant being plaintiff No 2 in the Original Suit leased out the premises involved herein being a godown measuring 11500 sq
at 156 A Tardeo Bombay 7
The said pre 596 mises was given by the landlord to the tenant the respond ent herein Ms Bright Brothers Pvt Ltd on lease vide the registered lease dated 14th April 1947 for a period of ten years commencing from 1st September 1946
By 1953 the respondent company began to fall into arrears in payment of rent
The respondent tenant filed an application before the appropriate Rent Court for fixing the standard rent
On 14th June 1958 the advocate of the second appellant sent a notice to the respondent tenant calling upon them to pay up the arrears for the period from September 1956 to May 1958 both months inclusive as well as for earlier arrears of rent of Rs20850
On 1st December 1958 a second notice was issued on behalf of the original plaintiff No 1 calling upon the respondent to quit and vacate the premises in question on the grounds inter alia a unauthorised construction of permanent nature b obstructing roadways and c the damage to walls and floor and further called upon them to remove the unauthorised construction and re store the suit premises to its original condition
Inasmuch as the main factual controversy in those appeals relate to the nature of the construction alleged to have been made by the tenant it is relevant to set out what was stated in that letter
It was inter alia stated that the tenant had unauthorisedly committed several breaches of the terms and conditions of the lease inasmuch as the tenant had erected unauthorised construction of a permanent nature and carried out additions to the demised premises without the consent of the lessor or the receiver
It was further alleged that in breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement of tenancy and without the consent of the lessor or the receiv er the tenant had occupied portion of the land not let out to him by obstructing the lessor and the person entitled to use the same and had made construction on the roadway by obstructing and restricting the passage
It was further alleged that the tenant had unauthorisedly and without permission dug up and mutilated the floors of the premises let out to the tenant and had constructed contrary to the provisions of section 1080 of the 
The tenant was called upon to remove the said unauthorised structures and restore the property and it was further notified that failing which the landlord would be compelled to take proceedings
A reply to the said notice issued by the Court Receiver was sent on 8th December 1958 from the respondent company s advocate saying that the construction complained of had taken place with the consent and full knowledge of the appellant and the respondent company had spent thousands of rupees towards the improvement of the suit 597 premises
Further in reply to the allegation of damage to the property the respondent company had alleged that it had in fact improved the property of the appellant
On or about 20th December 1958 the advocate for the appellant replied to the above letter once again calling upon the respondent company to vacate the demised premises
In 1959 the standard rent application being RA No 2214 of 1954 mentioned hereinbefore was dismissed
There upon the respondent tenant filed a civil revision applica tion
The appellant filed a suit being suit No 145083 18 of 1959 on or about 31st July 1959
On or about 8th Decem ber 1965 the appellant made an application for amendment of the plaint to include change of user as an additional ground of eviction
The respondent also made an application for amendment to the effect that permanent structure had been made with the knowledge and consent of the appellant
The said amendments were allowed in December 1965
On or about 31st March 1967 the trial court in suit No 1450 8318 of 1959 ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of permanent construction
Mesne profit from the date of the decree was also ordered
There was an appeal to the appellate bench before the CoUrt of Small Causes and cross appeal being appeal nos
323 and 629 of 1967
By the judgment delivered on 14th June 1973 the division bench of the Court of Small Causes confirmed the decree for eviction on the ground of permanent construction and granted eviction on change of user as well in the cross objection filed by the appellant
It also ordered mesne profit from the date of the suit and the monetary claims to the extent of arrears
The High Court on or about 34th July 1979 by judgment and order of the High Court in SCA 2052 and 174 of 1974 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution reversed the concurrent findings of the courts below and allowed the respondent company s application
Being aggrieved therefrom the appellants the landlords have come up in appeal to this Court
It is first necessary therefore to consider the nature of the structures made and whether these were permanent or not
As stated hereinbefore that permanent structures were constructed was held by the two courts concurrently namely the Judge of the Court of Small Causes as well as the Appel late Bench of the Small Causes Court whether by such con struction there has been change of user is another question
On the nature of the construction it is necessary to refer to the decision of the trial court
598 The main question however in these appeals is the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the find ings of this nature under Article 227 of the Constitution
The principles are well settled
Their application however in particular cases sometimes present difficulties
But the quest for certain amount of certitude must continue in this field of uncertain minds and imperfect language
To the facts therefore we must now refer to appreciate the application of law involved in this case
The premises in question was let out for use exclusively for business of manufacture of plastic articles wood work and paints only and not for any other purpose
it is alleged that it is no longer used for that purpose but used as an office and storage
The trial court in this case was the Court of Small Causes Bombay
One of the grounds of ejectment was the erection of permanent structure and it was the case of the appellant No 2 that such erection was against the provi sions of section 131b of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1974 hereinafter called the Rent Act 
Under clause p of section 108 of the  a lessee may not without the lessor s consent erect on the property and permanent structure except for agricultural purposes
If he does then this becomes a ground for ejectment
In this case the permanent structures alleged were constructions of lofts construction of several rooms and construction of and laying of a new and permanent flooring as appears from the plaint filed in the proceedings
It further appears that the tenant had sunk in pillars and stanchions into the flooring
it was stated in the deposi tion that these pillars and stanchions mentioned in the plaint were only those which were the posts supporting the cabins and lofts complained of and none else
These pillars and stanchions went along with the construction of lofts and construction of several rooms that is cabins
The learned trial court discussed the details and found those cabins marked A B C D E F G H I J K L etc
There were lofts marked cabins A B C D E F J K other lofts marked as F G H and I The third loft over the cabin at L and the lofts over the portions M  N
These were according to the engineer an architect Shri Divecha who was exam ined on behalf of the plaintiff permanent structures
The learned judge examined the plan prepared by the said archi tect and his deposition
The learned judge was of the view that it was clear from the 599 architect s evidence that lofts A B C D E J K as well as the lofts over F G H and I were meant to carry weight of over 100 Ibs
per sq
and this statement according to the learned judge was not challenged in the cross examina tion
The structures over A B C D E J and FCHI cannot therefore be called only roofs or tops of cabins
They were nothing but lofts
The structures A B C D E K J so also F G H I L  M were admitted to have been constructed by the tenant after it had taken the premises from the landlord
The learned judge in his judgment has also noted these various facts as to their length and dimen sions
He referred extensively to the evidence in the plan which was marked exhibit MI and the deposition of Shri Divecha
The learned Judge taking these factors into consideration came to the conclusion that the cabin lofts and posts sup porting the same were attached to the flooring as well as the walls and columns of the main structures
Under these circumstances the learned judge of the Court of Small Causes was of the opinion that the structures were permanent in nature
The learned judge however held that the land lord had failed to prove that the tenant had put up any permanent flooring at some part of the suit premises as alleged
The next allegation was that the tenants had demol ished a portion of the wall in between the two rooms and prepared a door at that opening
After discussing the facts and the evidence the learned judge was of the view that there was no question of any waste of the plaintiff s property on account of any demolition
He however had held that so far as cabins lofts and posts supporting the same by pillars these were nothing but permanent structures
So far as the digging of the flooring was concerned after discussing the evidence the learned judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove digging which led to waste of the property of the landlord
So far as the creation of the permanent structure is concerned the same breached the terms of tenancy
The learned judge noted that on 1st Janu ary 1948 the defendant No 1 wrote to the plaintiff that the height of the wooden partition they were erecting was specified within the plan sent along with the aforesaid letter which had already been lying ready for erection
It was contended by the defendants in their written statements that they had obtained consent in respect of the wooden cabins and partitions in the year 1948
So far as section 131b of the Bombay Rent Act is concerned there cannot be any waiver operating against the plaintiffs
It was the case that some of the permanent structures were there before 1947
On examination of the evidence the learned judge observed that Mr D silva had stated that the tenant had requested Mahindra  Mahindra for a design of a slotted angle cabin with a loft that the same was supplied and Mr D silva was the designer who did the work
Analysing all these evidence the 600 learned trial judge came to the conclusion that permanent structures were carried out without the consent in writing of the landlords or either of them
Such permanent structure was outside the tenancy and the landlord had not given any consent
The matter on this issue went up before the appellate court and the appellate court dealt with this again and discussed these allegations
It was pointed out by the appellate court that the allegations were that the appel lants had a made an opening by demolishing a part of the wall dividing the two portions of the demised premises b constructed lofts in the suit premises c dug upon the flooring of the premises at various places d sunk in pillars and stanchions into the flooring e constructed several rooms and laid new and permanent floorings in parts of the demised premises at different levels
So far con structing lofts it was held that these lofts had been constructed after 1st September 1946
And in this context the construction of cabins and putting up of pillars were considered and the evidence in this respect was taken into consideration
It was contended that the demised premises in the lease was described as godown but it was taken in the nature of several office premises and the change in the improvement done to the same was merely for the better enjoyment of demised premises
In the first place the cabins were made of wooden poles and planks fixed in the floor and side walls of the building with nails screws nuts and bolts
The appellate court came to the conclusion that applying the proper test the cabins were substantial struc tures and substantial improvement to the premises
These were durable for long and intended to be used permanently
The appellate court also took the question of digging and other relevant allegations
As a result of analysis of these evidence and materials the appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court that the tenant had erected permanent structure on the demised premises without the landlord s consent and that was a breach of the terms of tenancy
They also confirmed the finding of the trial court that the respondents did not waive their rights arising out of these acts
They also upheld the finding that there was no renewal of the lease of the landlords and the tenants were not statutory tenants whose contractual tenancy had come to an end by efflux of time by the end of the period of ten years from 1st September 1946
They upheld the decree for possession passed by the trial court
The High Court dealing with this matter under Article 227 of the Constitution had occasion to refer to this as pect
The High Court 601 referred to the different authorities on this point
We may briefly take note of some of these
In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Surya Properties Private Ltd and others vs Bimalendu Nath Sarkar and others
AIR 1964 Calcutta p 1 which dealt with clause p of section 108 of the and held that this question was dependent on the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down with regard to this matter
In the absence of any relevant materials therefore the Full Bench found that no answer could be given
in a slightly different context before Calcutta High Court in the case of Ms Suraya Proper ties Private Ltd vs Bimalendu Nath Sarkar
AIR 1965 Calcutta page 408 Chatterjee J one of the judges of the Division Bench observed that the phrase permanent struc ture  for purposes of clause p of section 108 of the meant a structure which was capable of lasting till the term of the lease and which was con structed in the view of being built up as was a building
In that context the learned judge observed that a reservoir was not however a permanent structure for purposes of clause p of section 108 of the 
Sen J of the same Bench was of the view that no hard and fast tests could be laid down for determining the question wheth er a particular structure by the tenant was a permanent structure for the purpose of clause p of section 108 of the 
The answer to the question depended on the facts of each case
Chatterjee J however took the view that where the tenant created a permanent structure in the premises leased to him as the lease con tinued in spite of the disputed structure and the landlord continued to receive rent till the determining of the lease by notice to quit or thereafter till the passing of the decree for eviction and the fact that he accepted rent with full knowledge of the disputed structure did not disentitle him to a decree for eviction
In Khureshi Ibrahim Ahmed vs Ahmed Haji Khanmahomad
AIR 1965 Gujarat 152 in connection with section 131b of the Rent Act Gujarat High Court held that the permanent structure must be one which was a lasting struc ture and that would depend upon the nature of structure
The permanent or temporary character of the structure would have to be determined having regard to the nature of the struc ture and the nature of the materials used in the making of the structure and the manner in which the structure was erected and not on the basis of how long the tenant intended to make use of the structure
As a matter of fact the Court observed the nature of the structure 602 itself would reflect whether the tenant intended that it should exist and be available for use for a temporary period or for an indefinite period of time
The test provided by the Legislature was thus an objective test and not a subjec tive one and once it was shown that the structure erected by the tenant was of such a nature as to be lasting in dura tion lasting of course according to ordinary notions of mankind the tenant cannot come forward and say that it was erected for temporary purpose
The question was again considered in the case of Ramji Virji and others vs Kadarbhai Esufali AIR 1973 Gujarat 110
It was observed that whether the structure was a perma nent structure was a mixed question of law and fact
It was held in that case that alterations made by a tenant like constructing loft wooden bathroom frame and putting up a new drain being minor alterations which were easily remova ble without causing any serious damage to the premises would not amount to permanent structure leading to the forfeiture
There are numerous authorities dealing with the question how the structure is a permanent structure or not should be judged
It is not necessary to deal with all these
One must look to the nature of the structure the purpose for which it was intended and take a whole perspective as to how it affects the enjoyment the durability of the building etc
and other relevant factors and come to a conclusion
Judged in the aforesaid light on an analysis of the evidence the trial court as well as the appellate court had held that the structures were permanent
The High Court observed that in judging whether the structures were perma nent or not the following factors should be taken into consideration referring to an unreported decision of Malvan kar J in special civil application No 121 of 1968
These were 1 intention of the party who put up the structure 2 this intention was to be gathered from the mode and degree of annexation 3 if the structure cannot be removed without doing irrepairable damage to the demised premises then that would be certainly one of the circumstances to be considered while deciding the question of intention
Like wise dimensions of the structure and 4 its removability had to be taken into consideration
But these were not the sole tests
5 the purpose of erecting the structure is another relevant factor
6 the nature of the materials used for the structure and 7 lastly the durability of the structure
These were the broad tests
The High Court ap plied these tests
So had the Trial Court as well as the appellate bench of Court of Small causes
603 All the relevant factors had been borne in mind by the learned trial judge as well as appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes
Therefore simply because another view is possible and on that view a different view is taken will be interfering under jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution which is unwarranted
The High Court was im pressed by the fact that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and further more for efficient and complete enjoyment of the demised premises and for carrying out the business of manufacturing plastic goods these structures had been constructed by the tenant temporarily
According to the High Court the nature of the materials used and the intention of the tenant were relevant and according to the High Court these structures could be removed without doing appreciable damage to the demised premises and these indicated that these were intended to be part and parcel of the normal part of the building
The High Court proceeded on the basis that the trial court as well as the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court had relied wholly on the basis of evidence of the admission of one Mr Pittie who had admitted that the landlord had knowledge of these factors
The other evidence according to the High Court
of the Divecha D Silva Kirtikar and Bhansali were not at all given proper and due weight
According to the High Court the High Court had in such circumstances juris diction to deal with this matter and in exercise of the jurisdiction as the High Court felt that relevant and material facts had been ignored the High Court set aside the order of the court of Small Causes and set aside the landlord s decree and restored the tenant in possession
As mentioned hereinbefore it is not necessary for our present purpose to decide whether plaintiffs  witnesses were properly appreciated
We find all the relevant evidence had been examined by the trial judge as well as by the appellate bench of the court of Small causes
We find relevant refer ence to the evidence of Divecha and others
We find refer ence to the relevant evidence in the deposition at pages 56 69 71 83 93 to 95 by the trial court as well as in pages 133 36 152 167 we find reference to the deposition at p 56 of the trial court and pages 62 to 63 as well as 65 to 71 and the Appellate Court at pages 134 and 147
Similarly the evidence of D silva who was an employee of Mahindra and Mahindra as also of Shri Kirtikar were discussed
It is not necessary to refer in detail to these evidence
So far as to what extent the factors are structures have been exhaustively referred to in Surya Properties Private Ltd and others vs Bimalendu Nath Barkar and others supra and Ms Surya Properties 604 Private Ltd vs Bimalendu Nath Sarkar supra and in our opinion these lay down correct position in law
As a matter of fact the tenant is no longer carrying on any business there but one Messrs Quality Plastics is carrying on the business
Therefore the original purpose is gone
In this connection reference may be made to Annexure IV appearing at page 428 of the Paper Book which is a letter dated both July 1964 written by the Concord of India Insurance Company Limited to the Secretary
The Insurance Association of India where it was stated clearly that Bright Brothers Pvt had shifted to Bhandup as from 29th April 1963 and at the relevant time they had only their Administrative Officer there and they were stocking finished goods in the premises in question
Further they have recently installed their Associate Company s factory in the said block working under the name of Ms
Quality Plastics in the premises in ques tion
Therefore in view of the fact that large sum had been spent and considering the standard and the nature of the construction and lack of easy removability and the degree of an annexation to the enjoyment for the original purpose we are of the opinion that the learned judge as well as appel late bench of the court of Small Causes had applied the correct principles and came to a plausible conclusion
About the removability of the structure the High Court was bound by the finding of the appellate authority which appears at page 341 to 344 of the Paper Book
In a case of this nature the High Court found that they had to enter into this ques tion to find the real position whether the proper principles had been correctly borne in mind
It is indisputable that the finding that has to be arrived at by the court in this case is a mixed question of law and fact
Therefore if the basic factors for example there was not proper apprecia tion of the evidence if the assumption that lofts per se were not permanent structures then the courts below might be said to have committed error apparent on record and no court instructed in law could take such a view
But if all the relevant factors have been borne in mind and correct legal principles applied then right or wrong if a view has been taken by the appellate court in our opinion interference under Article 227 of the Constitution was unwarranted
Interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution must be within limits
This question has been considered by this Court from time to time and principles laid down
This Court in Ganpat Ladha vs Sashikant Vishnu Shinde  expressed the view that the High Court commits a gross error in interfering with what was a just and proper exercise of discretion by the Court of 605 Small Causes in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution
This was unwarranted
The High Court under Article 227 has a limited jurisdiction
It was held in that case that a finding as to whether circumstances justified the exercise of discretion or not unless clearly perverse and patently unreasonale was after all a finding of fact and it could not be interfered with either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution
If a proper court has come to the conclusion on the examination of the nature of the structure the nature of the duration of structure the annexation and other relevant factors that the structures were permanent in nature which were violative of section 131b of the Rent Act as well as section 108 clause p of and such a finding is possible it cannot be considered to be perverse
In such a situation the High Court could not have and should not have inter fered
In India Pipe Fitting Co vs Fakruddin MA Bakar and Anr   this Court reiterated that the limitation of the Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution is well settled
Power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintendence and cannot be exer cised to upset the conclusions of facts however erroneous these may be
It is possible that another Court may be able to take a different view of the matter by appreciating the evidence in a different manner if it determinedly chooses to do so
That will not be justice administered according to law to which Courts are committed notwithstanding disserta tion in season and out of season about philosophies
In that case the Court found that the High Court had arrogated to itself the powers of the appellate court
As early in 1959 in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale 1960 1 SCR 890 this Court found that in that case on the materials avail able before it that the High Court was wrong in thinking that the alleged error in the judgment of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal was one apparent on the face of the record so as to be capable of being corrected by a writ of certiorari and an error which had to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conveivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
There might have been error in the judgment of the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes but it is not an error palpable and apparent right or wrong they had come to that conclusion
That was possible or plausible conclusion
In Mrs Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shah and Others vs Janardhan 606 Mahadeo Kalan and Another 14 this Court reiterated that concurrent finding of facts whether relating to jurisdictional issue or otherwise were not open to inter ference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitu tion
This Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata section Guram 1986 4 SCC p 447 held that in exercise of juris diction under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court can go into the questions of facts or look into the evidence if justice so requires it
But the High Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution to look into the facts in the absence of clear cut down reasons where the question depends upon the appreciation of evidence
The High Court should not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal or court except where the finding is perverse in law in the sense that no reasonable person properly instructed in law could have come to such a finding or there is misdirection in law or view of fact has been taken in the teeth of preponderance of evidence or the finding is not based on any material evidence or it resulted in manifest injustice
Except to the limited extent indicat ed above the High Court has no jurisdiction
In this instant case the tests laid down have not been transgressed by the court of Small Causes both trial court as well as the appellate bench
The view it took was a possible view
A different view might have been taken out that is no ground which would justify the High Court to interfere with the findings
In that view of the matter we allow the appeals set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore the order of the appellate bench of Court of Small Causes dated 4th June 1973
There will be an order for possession and mesne profits as directed by the Court of Small Causes
The respondents will pay the cost of these appeals
HLC Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellants who had let out the premises in question to the respondent Riled a suit for eviction inter alia on the ground that the tenant had erected unauthorised struc tures of a permanent nature in violation of the provisions of cl
p of section 108 of the and section 131b of the Bombay Rents
Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1974 and was using the premises for unauthorised purposes
The alleged permanent structures consisted of lofts and rooms which had been constructed by sinking pillars and stanchions into the flooring and the tenant admitted that these had been constructed after it had taken the premises from the landlord
After discussing the evidence tendered in detail including the deposition of the architect who had prepared the plan of the constructions in question and who had deposed that the constructions consist ed of permanent structures the Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the structures were of a permanent nature and ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of perma nent construction
The respondent s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes which on a detailed reappraisal of the evidence on record not only confirmed the decree for eviction on the ground of permanent construction but granted eviction on the ground of change of user as well
The respondent went in appeal against the order of the appellate court
The High Court dealing with the matter under article 227 of the Constitution reversed the concurrent findings of the courts below and allowed the respondent s petition
Allowing the appeal and restoring the order of the lower appellate court 594 HELD 1
a Interference by the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution must be within limits
This question has been considered by this Court from time to time and principles laid down
The power under article 227 is one of judicial superintendence and it cannot be exercised to upset the conclusions of facts however erroneous these may be
It is possible that another Court may be able to take a differ ent view of the matter by appreciating the evidence in a different manner if it determinedly chooses to do so
That will not be justice administered according to law to which courts are committed
605D E b In exercise of jurisdiction under article 227  of the Constitution the High Court can go into questions of facts or look into the evidence if justice so requires it
But the High Court should decline to exercise that jurisdiction to look into the facts in the absence of clear cut reasons where the question depends upon the appreciation of evi dence
The High Court should not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal or court except where the finding is perverse in law in the sense that no reasonable person properly instructed in law could have come to such a finding or there is misdirection in law or view of fact has been taken in the teeth of prepon derance of evidence or the finding is not based on any material evidence or it resulted in manifest injustice
Except to the extent indicated above the High Court has no jurisdiction
606B D Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde  Ors
vs Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale 1960 1 SCR 890 India Pipe Fitting Co vs Fakruddin MA Baker  Anr   Ganpat Ladha vs Shashikant Vishnu Shinde 1978 3 SCR 198 Mrs Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shah  Ors
vs Janardan Mahadeo Kalan  Anr and Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata section Guram   re ferred to 2
No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determin ing the question whether a particular structure put up by the tenant is a permanent structure for the purpose of cl
p of section 108 of the as it is dependent on the facts of each case
One must look to the nature of the structure the purpose for which it was in tended and take a whole perspective as to how it affects the enjoyment the durability of the building etc
and other relevant factors and come to a conclusion
601D E 602D E Surya Properties Private Ltd  Ors
vs Bimalendu Nath Sarkar  Ors and Ms Surya Proper ties Private Ltd 595 vs Bimalendu Nath Sarkar AIR 1965 Calcutta 408 ap proved
Khureshi Ibrahim Ahmed vs Ahmed Haji Khanmahomad AIR 1965 Gujarat 152 and Ramji Virji  Ors
vs Kadarbhai Esufa li AIR1973 Gujarat 110 referred to
In this case on an analysis of the evidence the trial court as well as the appellate court had held that the structures were permanent
All the relevant factors had been borne in mind by the learned trial Judge as well as the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes
The view taken by them was a possible view
A different view might have been taken but that is no ground which would justify the High Court to interfere with the findings
600F