1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.664 OF 2008 Samarth Co-operative Consumers Central Stores Ltd., ..Applicants V/s Dr.Yashwant Kashinath Chipkar since deceased through his Lrs Dr.Ashok Chipkar & Anr. Respondents ---- Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar Senior Counsel with Sagar Joshi for the applicants. Mr. P .K.Dhakephalkar with R.S.Datar for the respondents. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 13th August, 2009. PC 1 This is a revision filed by the original tenant impugning concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the two lower Courts. The landlord had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of illegal sub-letting, erection of a permanent structure and commission of an act contrary to section 108(o) of the Transfer of Properties Act. The trial Court decreed the suit on all grounds and the appeal Court has also confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. It is an admitted position that one of the walls inside the suit premises has been demolished by the tenant and both the Courts held that such an act is contrary to section 108(o). As regards permanent construction, the case of the plaintiffs was that two new 3 feet walls were erected for putting up a counter. Advocate for the applicants/tenants 2 contended that since the business was of running a departmental store, these walls were an absolute necessity for erecting counter of sale. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Dnyanu Babu Mali (Jambhalikar) V/s. Khajesha Hanifsha Abdul Bhandari & ors. Reported in 1990 Bom. R.C. 260. That was a case where a cement concrete water tank was constructed, and the Court held that it cannot be said to be permanent construction since it was an absolute necessity. In the present case, facts are different. The wall is said to have been erected sometime in the year 1985. The business of departmental stores was admittedly, carried from 1972 to 1985 without any wall being constructed. It cannot be accepted that the construction of such walls was an absolute necessity. In my view, no different view can be taken than the view taken by the trial Court in so far as the finding relating to permanent construction and violation of section 108(o). It was sought to be argued that the finding of the Court relating to creation of sub-tenancy was erroneous as there was no finding regarding creating any permanent interest. Though there may be some arguable points in this regard, in view of the fact that decree on the ground of permanent construction and committing an act which is violative of section 108(o), this revision cannot be allowed. Revision is therefore, dismissed. 2 Advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the interim relief which is operating for a period of six weeks. The interim relief which is operating will be extended for a period of six weeks subject to the filing of usual undertaking within a period of two weeks from today. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3