Unauthorized Modifications and Rent Default Justify Eviction: Bombay High Court Rejects Tenants' Appeal

On September 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Anil Joginder Sachdev & Another vs. Balasaheb Hiralal Zad & Another. The court rejected the tenants' revision application and confirmed their eviction on multiple grounds, including rent arrears, unauthorized modifications, and the construction of permanent structures within the premises.

The dispute involves a shop admeasuring 150 square feet situated on the ground floor of a building at CTS No.545 Sadashiv Peth, Laxmi Road, Pune. Originally owned by Shri Sarjerao Jadhav, the property was later acquired by the plaintiffs-landlords in 1979. The defendants, operating their business under the name 'Dev Sport,' became tenants in this property. The landlords initiated eviction proceedings due to the tenants' failure to pay rent and alleged unauthorized modifications.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the tenants had defaulted in rent payment, caused damage to the premises, and constructed permanent structures without the landlords' consent. The plaintiffs invoked several provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, and the Transfer of Property Act. Key arguments centered on the validity of the demand notice for rent arrears, the alleged erection of unauthorized structures, and the limitation period for filing the suit.

Rent Arrears: The Court found that the tenants had failed to deposit the arrears of rent, falling within the meaning of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. The demand notice issued by the landlords was deemed valid, and the court rejected the tenants' claim that they had complied with rent payments.

Unauthorized Modifications: The Court observed that the tenants had made significant alterations to the premises without the landlords' consent, including the erection of a platform (Ota) and showcases outside the shop, which amounted to a breach of tenancy under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. The court noted that these structures were of a permanent nature and went beyond mere permissible modifications for commercial use.

Injury to Property: The tenants were found to have damaged the property by breaking external walls and replacing them with glass showcases, causing injury to the suit premises.

The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the eviction decree against the tenants. The Court found that the tenants had defaulted on rent payments, made unauthorized modifications to the premises, and caused damage to the property, thereby justifying their eviction.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

Anil Joginder Sachdev & Another vs. Balasaheb Hiralal Zad & Another