PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR & ORS. versus DAYANAND GUPTA

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 944 · Decided: 31-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 944 
PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR & ORS. 
v. 
DAYANAND GUPTA 
(Civil Appeal No. 7710 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 31, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - s. 13(1)(b) -
Suit for eviction - On the ground of construction of permanent 
C 
structure without the permission of the land-lord - Decreed by 
trial court - High Court set-aside the decree - On appeal, held: 
The alteration made by the tenant was a permanent structure 
and fell within the mischief of s. 108(p) of Transfer of property 
Act - Thus constituted a ground for eviction in terms of s. 
o 13(1)(b) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 108(p). 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 108(p) - Permanent 
structure - Determination of - Held: A structure that lasts till 
the end of tenancy can be treated as permanent structure -
Removability of the structure without causing damage to the 
E building, durability of the structure and the material used for 
erection and the purpose for which the structure is intended, 
are the other considerations for deciding whether the structure 
is permanent. 
F 
Words and Phrases - 'Permanent structure'- Meaning of 
in the context of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 
ands. 108(p) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
Appellants-landlords filed a suit for ejectment against 
G the respondent-tenant on the ground that the tenant 
illegally and unauthorisedly, without permission of the 
land-lord, removed the tin sheet roof and replaced the 
same by a cement concrete slab and built a permanent 
brick and mortar passage to roof; and that the same was 
H 
944 
PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR & ORS. v. 
945 
DAYANAND GUPTA 
violative of s. 108(p) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and 
A 
also the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement 
executed between the parties and thus the tenant was 
liable to be evicted u/s. 13(1)(b) of West Bengal Premises 
Tenancy Act, 1956. Trial court decreed the suit. High Court 
setting aside the decree, allowed the appeal of the tenant. 
B 
Hence the present appeal by the land-lord. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. No hard and fast rule can be prescribed for 
determining what is permanent or what is not. The use 
C 
of the word 'permanent' in Section 108 (p) of the Transfer 
of Property Act, 1882 is meant to distinguish the structure 
from what is temporary. The term 'permanent' does not 
mean that the structure must last forever. A structure that 
lasts till the end of the tenancy can be treated as a 
D 
permanent structure. The intention of the party putting up 
the structure is important for determining whether it is 
permanent or temporary. The nature and extent of the 
structure is similarly an important circumstance for 
deciding whether the structure is permanent or temporary 
E 
within the meaning of Section 108 (p) of the Transfer of 
Property Act. Removability of the structure without 
causing any damage to the building is yet another test 
that can· be applied while deciding the nature of the 
structure. So also the durability of the structure and the 
material used for erection of the same will help in deciding 
whether the structure is permanent or temporary. Lastly 
F 
the purpose for which the structure is intended is also 
an important factor that cannot be ignored. [Para 17] [957-
C-F] 
Venkatlal G. Pittie and Anr. v. Bright Bros. Pvt. Ltd. (1987) 
3 sec 558: 1987 (1) SCR 516 - relied on. 
G 
Suraya Properties Private Ltd. v. Bimalendu Nath Sarkar 
AIR1965 Cal 408; Surya Properties Private Ltd. and Ors. v. 
H 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A Bimalendu Nath Sarkar and Ors. AIR 1964 Cal 1 - referred 
to. 
2. In the instant case, the structure was not a 
temporary structure by any means. The kitchen and the 
8 storage space forming part of the demised premises was 
meant to be used till the tenancy in favour of the 
respondent-occupant subsisted. Removal of the roof and 
replacement thereof by a concrete slab was also meant 
to continue till the tenancy subsisted. The intention of the 
C tenant while replacing the tin roof with concrete slab, 
obviously was not to make a temporary arrangement but 
to provide a permanent solution for the alleged failure of 
the landlord to repair the roof. The construction of the 
passage was also a permanent provision made by the 
tenant which too was intended to last till the subsistence 
D of the lease. The concrete slab was a permanent feature 
of the demised premises and cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.