Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2018/07/how-to-determine-that-tenant-has-done.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:35:37+00:00

Document:
Law Web: How to determine that tenant has done construction of permanent nature?
How to determine that tenant has done construction of permanent nature?
"There is a distinction between effecting repairs and in its guise to make structural alteration or to restructure the building. The tenant cannot effect structural alteration or reconstruct the building. It is the right of the landlord alone to exclusively have it done, unless of course, the landlord having had the tenant evicted from the building for that purpose and demolished the building failed to reconstruct and redeliver possession thereof to the tenant. In a given case if the tenant acts unilaterally and effects structural alterations or reconstruct the building, it itself may be a ground for eviction under the appropriate provision of the statute.
(ii) If what has been done is by way of minor repairs for the better enjoyment and use of the premises, it cannot be regarded as a permanent structure. Similarly, if the object and purpose of annexation was only to better the mode of enjoyment of the demised premises as in the case of construction of the kitchen platform, it does not amount to a permanent structure within the meaning of Section 13(1)(b) of the said Rent Act.
"17. The word permanent structure has not been defined under Bombay Rent Act. But the permanent or temporary character of the structure would have to be determined, having regard to the nature of the structure and the nature of the material used in the making of the structure and the manner in which the structure is erected. The test provided by the Legislation is thus an objective test and not a subjective test. The structure which fulfils the objective test by having a permanent element would not seized to be so merely because of the intention of the tenant. Whether a particular construction is a permanent structure or is merely of a temporary nature is a question which depends on the facts of each case in determining whether the structure is a permanent or not on certain things shall have required to be considered. Firstly, the nature of the structure. Secondly, the intention with which it is made. Thirdly, a citus and fourthly the mode of annexation, where the purpose is that the structure should be permanently used, the structure is permanent whatever may be the nature of material applied for its construction. In the light of these tests, the present putting of 12 wooden rafters and tin sheet-roofs over the suit premises shall have to be considered. A permanent nature construction made on the roof putting rafters and placing tin sheet roofs thereon, falls within the mischief of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, the trial judge has rightly held that the construction effected by the defendant-tenant comes within the purview of erection of permanent nature construction. It is not a temporary nature or a tenantable repairs as urged by the learned Advocate for appellant in this regard. Admittedly, the appellant-defendant have not obtained any permission in writing from the plaintiff land-lady before its construction. It is pertinent to note that the suit premises let out to the mother of defendant was having a flat roof Malwadi and Kilasbandi. This fact has not been denied on behalf of the defendant-tenant. It is also undisputed that the defendants have put 12 wooden rafters and placed 18 tin sheet roofs in place of that roof or Kilasbandi. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant-appellant have made a permanent alteration in the suit premises. The removing of flat roof or Kilasbandi and putting wooden rafters and tin sheet roofs over the suit premises which materially or substantially changed the existing structure of the suit premises which comes within the mischief of Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act."
Therefore, written permission from the landlord is a must insofar as permanent structure is concerned and so far as repairs, a fifteen days written notice is necessary. In both these cases, tenant cannot act unilaterally of his own, without the written permission for permanent construction and the written notice for any repairs, to keep the premises in good and tenantable condition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied on a catena of judgments in support of his submission, as well as, in support of the reasoning given by the Courts below. Those decisions are as follows. Vimalabai Jayant Pawar v. Laxmibai Jayawantrao Nandrekar 1984 B.R.C. 363; Somnath Krishnaji Gangal v. Moreshwar K. Kale and Ors. 1995 (1) M.L.J. 675, Ramakant Ganpati Potdar and Anr. v. Madhav Ganesh Dixit 1989 Mah. R.C.J. 387, Shadisingh v. Rakha MANU/SC/0504/1992 : 2SCR726 , Surajmal v. Indian National MANU/WB/0064/1956 : AIR1956Cal187 , Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rana Sugar Mills MANU/TN/0267/1952 : 21ITR191(Mad) , Venkatlal G. Pittie v. Bright Bros. MANU/SC/0824/1987 : 3SCR593 .
'7. The expression 'repairs' and 'reconstruction' are not defined in the Act. Therefore, in order to construe provisions of the Bombay Rent Act where the same words occur, one has to take recourse to the ordinary dictionary meaning of such words, and to find out what is the connotation which is in conformity and in harmony with the Act. The meaning of such words which further the purpose of the Act and it scope is the meaning that has to be adopted. The Act intends to give protection to tenants from their eviction by the landlords. Therefore, eviction of the tenant is permissible only when the grounds laid down in the Act itself are satisfied.
11. Admittedly there is no case made out or borne out even from the record that the repairs were so urgent that it was not possible for the petitioners-tenants even to wait for some period of time. It is difficult to accept the case of the petitioners-tenants that they repaired the part of the premises by putting the roof after the notice or intimation, as referred above. Therefore, it remains unrebutted that the tenant, without the written permission from the landlord and without giving any intimation and/or written notice as contemplated under the Act, made the permanent structure. In the present case, if we take the factual aspect, it is very clear that it was a permanent replacement of roof even though of 6 Khans as sought to be contended. It is not the case of just repairing as contemplated and as elaborated by the Courts as in Ramakant and Somnath (supra) reproduced above. If it is not repairing then the structure in question as reproduced and noted by the Commissioner and as observed by the Courts below rightly amounts to unauthorised permanent structure as contemplated under the Bombay Rent Act. In the present case, admittedly, only part of the premises were got repaired i.e. 3 Khans out of 6 Khans which were let out to the tenants. The contention, therefore, that it was part-repairing of the roof also nowhere supports the provisions of the Scheme of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner-tenant has 'reconstructed' the roof. It was not the simple 'repairing' as elaborated in Ramakant (supra).
12. The explanation to Section 13(1)(b) further clarifies the meaning of the expression 'permanent structure' as contemplated under the Bombay Rent Act. If ordinary definition of 'permanent structure' is not available, then the intention of the legislature must be respected as reflected in Section 13(1)(b) and specially the explanation. There is nothing which further supports the case of the petitioners even from the explanation that the tenants, in such circumstances, are entitled and/or have a right to repair the premises in question. The petitioner has not made out any case of exception as contemplated under Section 13(1)(b) to Explanation to the expression 'permanent structure'. The construction made by the tenant falls within the meaning of 'permanent structure' and/or 'reconstruction' without written permission. It is not a case of minor repairs.
13. Section 23 of the Act definitely imposes a duty on the landlord to keep the premises in a good condition. He is, therefore, under an obligation to make necessary repairs. But, in case of failure to keep the premises in good condition, there must be a notice or intimation by the tenant to point but the necessity of any such urgent repairs. If there is no such notice issued and the tenant on his own, unilaterally contract without written intimation and permission of the landlord, such unauthorised permanent construction, in that case, definitely falls within the clutches of the mandate of Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 23 of the Act. This breach, therefore, raises no doubt that the landlord, in such circumstances, is entitled to claim possession of the premises [Shadisingh (supra)]. As rightly painted out and as observed by the Courts below that the tenant had no right to get the premises altered or reconstructed in such fashion. There is no such provision available under the Bombay Rent Act which compels the landlord to reconstruct or rebuild in each and every circumstances, except to keep the premises in good tenantable repair. The tenant cannot unauthorisedly make permanent construct ion without written permission from the land lord.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.