VITHAL N. SHETTI AND ANR. versus PRAKASH N. RUDRAKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 284 · Decided: 20-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR, ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
VITHAL N. SHETTI AND ANR. 
v. 
PRAKASH N. RUDRAKAR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 
S. I 3(J)(b)-Tenant errecting permanent structure-Consent of landlord 
to be in writing-Proceedings for eviction on ground that tenants errected 
permanent structures without obtaining landlord's consent in writing and 
without having building plans sanctioned by Municipal Corporation-Tenant 
contending to have obtained prior sanction of Municipal Corporation and of 
the owner-Trial court found the grounds for eviction not made out, but 
D appellate court found the grounds made out and allowed eviction-Tenant's 
petition under Article 227 dismissed by High Court-In appeal before Supreme 
Court tenant reiterating his plea, which was raised before but was negatived 
by High Court, that the consent given by landlord formed part of Municipal 
record and the same be summoned-Held, written statement does not 
E specifically plead the landlord having given the consent in writing-Particulars 
of the consent given by landlord also not pleaded-The plaint makes a positive 
averment of a negative fact, i.e. the absence of consent in writing of landlord 
to raising of permanent structure by tenant over tenancy premises-It was 
necessary for tenant to have raised specific pleading in written statement 
setting out the particulars of consent in writing-Even factum of landlord 
F having given such consent in writing is not stated nor is there anything on 
record on which tenant relies-Tenant should have taken steps before trial 
court for summoning Municipal records-Nor such effort appears to have 
been made before appellate court-High Court rightly declined to accept a 
belated prayer for summoning the Municipal record-Appeals dismissed-
Since tenants have remained in occupation of suit premises for a long time 
G and running commercial activities therefrom, they are allowed I 2 months time 
to vacate. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2500-2502 
of 1998. 
284 
VITHAL N. SHETTI v. PRAKASH N. RUDRAKAR 
285 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.1998 of the Mumbai High A 
Court in W.P. No. 2416/85. C. Application No. 2218/85. 6801of1997. 
Jaideep Gupta, Satya Mitra and Sanjay R. Hegde, for the Appellants. 
Makarand D. Addkar, Praveen Satale, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh 
and Uday Urmesh Lalit, for the Respondents. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is tenant's appeal by special leave. Though the appeals are three 
in number, the subject matter is one common judgment and therefore, the C 
three are being treated as ont: appeal. The suit pre1nises are situated in the 
city of Pune and governed by the provisions of The Bombay Rents, Hotel 
and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter " the Act " for 
short). The suit premises are admittedly owned by respondent No. I and are 
held in tenancy by the appellant. Proceedings for eviction of the appellants 
were initiated on very many grounds. At this stage, we are concerned only D 
with the ground of eviction available under clause (b) of sub-Section (l) of 
Section 13 of the Act, which p1 ovides that a landlord shall be entitled to· 
recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant 
has, without the landlord's consent given in writing, erected on the premises 
any permanent structure. 
Incidentally, it may be stated that the suit premises were initially owned 
by one Dattaraya Chiplukar, who died in the year 1974 and his widow, 
having succeeded to the rights in the property, transferred the same to the 
respondent No. l in the year 1978. The appellant came in the possession of 
E 
the premises sometime in the year 1961 having acquired the tenancy rights F 
from his predecessor in interest - one Puram, who in turn had succeeded the 
tenancy rights from one Shri Niwas Patki, who was inducted as tenant in the 
year 1941 by Chiplunkar. 
It is not disputed that in the year 1961, the tenant-appellant has raised 
a permanent structure over the tenancy premises. The structure raised by the G 
appellant consists of a dinning hall, a kitchen and lavatory. According to the 
landlord-respondent No. I, the said construction was carried out without 
obtaining consent of the landlord and without having the building plans 
sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. The plea taken by the appellant in 
the written statement is one

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.