Landlord is Entitled to Partial Eviction of Appurtenant Land Under Section 13(1)(ii) for Raising New Construction.

The Respondent (landlord) purchased the suit premises—comprising land bearing Survey Nos. 8-A and 15-A along with two structures (House Nos. 12-A and 12-B)—in 1984

The Petitioner (tenant) had occupied the property since 1948 for a saw-mill business

The landlord filed a suit for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, on grounds of bona fide requirement for development, non-user, and unlawful subletting

The Trial Court granted a partial decree of eviction, directing the tenant to hand over possession of the open land in Survey No. 15-A but dismissing the claim regarding Survey No. 8-A

The Additional District Judge, Palghar, dismissed the tenant's appeal, confirming the partial eviction

The tenant filed this Writ Petition challenging the concurrent findings

1. Whether Survey No. 15-A constitutes "land appurtenant" to the building within the meaning of Section 5(8)(b) and Section 13(1)(ii) of the Bombay Rent Act

2. Whether the court can legally pass a decree for partial eviction in respect of a composite lease of land and structures

The court primarily applied Section 13(1)(ii) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, which permits a landlord to recover possession of "land appurtenant" to a building for the purpose of erecting a new building

It followed the interpretation of "appurtenant" established in Morarji Goculdas Deoji Trust v. Madhav Vithal Kudwa, which held that the term is of variable import and must be applied in a secondary, non-technical sense based on the facts of each case

furthermore, it relied on Sakeena v. Kusumbi, which affirmed that when buildings and plots are treated as a consolidated property for tenancy, adjoining vacant land can be recovered for construction

The court found that the tenancy was composite, involving both plots and structures as a single demised premises

Evidence from the tenant (DW-1) admitted that the premises were taken as "open space and house together"

The court reasoned that since the land (Survey No. 15-A) and the structures had a nexus and were treated as a consolidated property, the land qualified as "appurtenant" in the secondary sense required by law

It rejected the tenant's argument for a "primary/restricted" meaning of appurtenance, noting that such an interpretation would virtually prevent landlords from ever recovering open spaces in composite leases for development, thus defeating the legislative intent of Section 13(1)(ii)

The landlord’s pleaded requirement for construction, supported by sanctioned plans for Survey No. 15-A, justified the partial eviction

It held that Survey No. 15-A is land appurtenant to the structures and the landlord is entitled to recover its possession for new construction under Section 13(1)(ii) of the Bombay Rent Act

The partial decree of eviction was deemed a fair balance of interests

The Petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession of Survey No. 15-A within eight weeks