-
by sayum
25 May 2026 9:09 AM
“Removal of Internal Walls and Creation of New Entry Without Permission Amounts to Permanent Structure and Damage Under Rent Act”, In a significant ruling Bombay High Court, while partly allowing a civil revision application in Sau. Suman Ramesh Samant v. Shri Arun R. Patil, restored an eviction decree against a tenant for carrying out material structural alterations—specifically, demolition of internal walls and creating a new entrance—without the landlady’s consent. Justice M.M. Sathaye held that such acts constituted “damage” under Section 13(1)(a) and “erection of permanent structure” under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and could not be excused by a lease clause permitting “some changes”.
The Court found that the appellate court’s interpretation of the lease clause and its exoneration of the tenant from liability was “perverse” and contrary to the statutory scheme, and thus warranted interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
“Tenant Cannot Rely on Clause Permitting ‘Some Changes’ as Blanket Licence to Make Structural Alterations”
The central legal controversy stemmed from Clause 5 of the lease agreement, which permitted the tenant to make “some changes” to convert the residential portion of the premises into a hospital. Relying on this clause, the tenant claimed justification for making substantial alterations, including removal of internal partition walls and creation of a new access point.
However, the Court rejected this expansive interpretation, holding: “The above clause permits ‘some changes’. Firstly, the words used are ‘काही फेरबदल’ and not ‘कोणतेही फेरबदल’. Assuming that the dominant purpose was for running hospital... it cannot be treated as ‘a blanket permission’ to make permanent structure/material alterations without permission of the landlady or Municipal Corporation.”
Justice Sathaye clarified that tenants cannot contract out of statutory protections afforded to landlords, and a clause allowing minor modifications cannot be used to override provisions of Section 13(1)(b):
“If Clause 5 is interpreted in a blanket manner, then it would amount to rendering the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act nugatory... The Appeal Court’s interpretation of Clause 5 is perverse.”
Admissions by Tenant Sealed the Issue: Unauthorised Construction Proven by Cross-Examination and Municipal Notices
The Court placed heavy reliance on the tenant’s own admissions in cross-examination, including:
Conversion of kitchen and hall into wards by constructing new walls;
Removal of partition walls to create a new entrance to the premises;
No consent obtained from either the landlady or the Municipal Corporation;
No architect or engineer was consulted during the alteration process.
These acts, according to the Court, not only altered the structural character of the premises but also violated Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which obliges tenants to use the premises in a manner that does not cause permanent damage.
“Demolition of internal walls and creation of a new entrance to suit premises amounts to changing the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and therefore, requires not only permission from the Applicant/landlady... but also from the Municipal Corporation.”
The tenant’s claim that such modifications were necessary for running a hospital was rejected, with the Court holding that professional convenience cannot override statutory mandates.
Other Eviction Grounds Dismissed: No Bonafide Requirement, No Nuisance, No Change of User
While allowing the eviction on grounds of damage and structural alterations, the High Court declined to interfere with the appellate court’s findings on other grounds:
Bonafide Requirement under Section 13(1)(g): The landlady already possessed alternative premises totalling 800–1000 sq. ft., including multiple rooms recovered from other tenants. Both lower courts held against her on this count.
Change of User under Section 13(1)(k): The lease expressly permitted conversion of residential use into hospital, negating the claim.
Nuisance under Section 13(1)(c): Allegations regarding unhygienic hospital waste and misuse of terrace were unsubstantiated and lacked independent evidence.
“The Applicant has not examined any tenant or independent witness to show that medical waste is being thrown, creating nuisance.”
Thus, on these three aspects, the Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error that would justify interference in its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.
Eviction Order Restored with Time to Vacate: Undertaking Required from Tenant
Concluding the matter, the Court reinstated the original eviction decree passed by the Trial Court in 2003 solely on grounds under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b), setting aside the appellate court’s judgment to that extent. The tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession within six weeks, subject to furnishing an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks. The Court, however, declined any cost order.
“The impugned judgment and decree dated 22/09/2006 is quashed and set aside, only for the ground of damages and permanent structure... The decree of the Trial Court dated 15/02/2003 is confirmed on these grounds.”
Statutory Protections for Landlords Cannot Be Contracted Out by Lease Terms
This ruling reaffirms that minor contractual permissions cannot override the statutory prohibition on permanent structures and damage without proper consent. It also reinforces that structural integrity of rented premises is not subject to unilateral tenant modifications, even when such acts are claimed to be professionally essential.
The judgment is expected to be of significant relevance in future landlord-tenant disputes, especially involving non-residential use and structural alterations for commercial purposes like hospitals or clinics.
Date of Decision: 14 January 2026
