1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPICATION NO. 561 OF 2007 Smt. Isarat Masood ) Adult, Indian Inhabitant, ) Occ: Housewife, residing at ) 53/59, Jhaveri Villa,3rd floor, ) Room No.13, Lamington Road, ) Mumbai 400 008. ).. Applicant (Org.Defendant) Vs. Jhaverilal Umershi Shah ) AdultIndian Inhabitant, residing at ) 53/59, Jhaveri Villa, 1st Flor, Room No.8, ) Lamington Road, Mumbai 400 008. ).. Respondent (Oreg. Plaintiff) Mr. G.S.Godbole, Senior Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.P.S.Dani,Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 28th April, 2010. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties forthwith. 2. The revision-applicant is a tenant in Room No.13, Jhaveri Villa,at 53/59,Lamington Road, Mumbai. The respondent is the original plaintiff- landlord. The plaintiff had filed RAE & R Suit No.9/21 of 1991 for eviction on 2 the ground that the tenant had failed to make payment of rent and was in arrears for more than six months and inspite of notice, he had failed. Several other grounds are also taken. Pending the suit, amendment was made in the plaint alleging that during the pendency of the suit, she had also made construction of permanent nature by constructing attic floor and a loft in the suit room, causing danger to the structure of the building. All these contentions were denied. The trial Court passed the decree for eviction on both the grounds. The defendant preferred Appeal No.169/2004. That appeal was also dismissed upholding the decree on both the grounds. Hence, this Revision Application by the original defendant. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendant pointed out that notice of demand for arrears and permitted increases was issued on 10.10.1990 by the landlord to the tenant and by that notice, the arrears were demanded from 1.2.1986. The suit was filed on 10.2.1991. He pointed out that issues were framed on 25.5.1999 and before framing the issues, on 5.3.1999, the trial Court had passed an order directing the tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent upto 31.3.1999 amounting to Rs.17,031.50 ps. Payment was to be made by depositing the same on or before 10.6.1999. Besides this, there was also a direction to make regular payment of rent at the rate of Rs.93/- per month with effect from 1.4.1999 3 onwards. The learned Counsel pointed out that before this order, certain payments were already made and as per the said order, on 10.6.1999, amount of Rs. 17,031.50 ps. was deposited. On 10.6.1999, the tenant had also deposited the amount of rent from April to July 1999 and thereafter the rent was regularly deposited and on many occasions it was deposited in advance. This fact is not in dispute. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that as per Sec.12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act,1947 (for short, "the Act”), no decree for eviction could be passed by the Court in any suit for recovery of possession on ground of arrears of standard rent and permitted increases if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and together with sample interest on the amount of arrears of standard rent at the rate of 9% per annum and thereafter continues to pay or tenders in Court regularly such rent or permitted increases. The appellate court observed that even though the rent was deposited, interest was not paid on the same as required under Section 12(3). In fact, on perusal of the order, it appears that the Court had made calculations of the arrears till 31,3.1999 and the Court had directed to specifically deposit the amount of Rs.17,031.50 ps. and that amount was deposited. There was no order to indicate that interest was to be paid in addition to this nor this order disclosed that interest amount was or was not 4 calculated in the said amount. The said order was fully complied with. As the order was totally silent about interest and it did not indicate that interest was not included in the amount. The benefit of doubt on this count could be given to the tenant. The leaned Counsel for the landlord also conceded on this point. 4. The second ground on which decree of eviction was passed was about making construction of a permanent nature i.e. loft and attic floor. The plaintiff had led sufficient evidence. This evidence was discussed by the Courts below. The Court noted that on 8.4.l993, a letter was addressed by the landlord to the tenant objecting to her intention to make construction of the loft and the attic floor. That letter was replied on 21.4.1993 wherein she denied any such intention and she clearly stated that she had no desire to construct the sub-floor or the loft as contended by the respondent nor she had any intention to break open the wall between the bedroom and balcony for this purpose. Later on, the amendment was made in the plaint to show that she had actually carried out that work. Evidence of PW-5 - Girish A. Nerurkar, Architect revealed that he had paid visit to the spot for inspection in presence of both the parties and had submitted report dated 14.1.2001 which revealed the existence of the attic floor in the kitchen room with trap door entry and it also revealed that it was constructed of teak wood structural six numbers embedded in thick brick masonry wall with teak wood and due to this 5 there was load on the old walls and thereby the existing brick wall was badly damaged. The wall and building were load bearing and therefore additional weight could damage the walls and cause danger to the existence of the building itself. 5. On behalf of the tenant, it was argued before the first appellate court and the learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the premises were inspected by PW-2 Anil Patil, an architect of MHADA in the year 1991 and he had not noted existence of any such attic floor. However, taking into consideration the circumstances, it is clear that in 1991, the attic floor was not in existence and it was constructed later on during pendecy of the suit and therefore the plaintiff was required to make amendment of the plaint. Therefore PW-2 Anil Patil could not find existence of any such attic floor. In the reply dated 21.4.93, the defendant had not contended that such attic floor was already in existence. The Courts below minutely considered the evidence in respect of the said additional construction. It needs to be note that in Revision Application, the Revisional Court is not expected to minutely analyze th evidence of the parties on facts just to find out whether different view could be possible. In revision, the Court has to find out whether there was any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. In the present case, the construction of a permanent nature has been sufficiently proved 6 by the evidence on record. I do not find any illegality or irregularity on this count. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord rightly pointed out that even when several grounds are raised for eviction and if the Court is satisfied that even one ground is proved, that is sufficient to pass a decree on that ground. Section 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act clearly shows that a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant has, without the landlord’s consent given in writing, erected on the premises any permanent structure. This fact has been proved and therefore the landlord would be entitled to decree for eviction on this ground. Even though this Court finds that the decree for eviction could not have been passed under Section 12(3), I find no illegality or irregularity in respect of the decree passed under Section 13(1)(b). Therefore, the Revision Application is liable to be dismissed. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Application stands dismissed. 8. As the C.R.A. is dismissed, C.A. No.354/2007 does not survive and stands disposed of. 9. In view of the request of the learned Senior Counsel for the revision- 7 applicant, the decree for eviction shall not be implemented and executed till 31.7.2010 subject to condition that the defendant/revision applicant shall not create any third party interest or shall not induct any third person in the premises. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)