Partial Eviction From Composite Tenanted Premises Permissible Under Section 13(1)(ii) for Constructing New Buildings

The Respondent-landlord purchased two plots (Survey No. 8-A and Survey No. 15-A) along with a shed and a house from a previous owner in 1984

The Petitioner-tenant had been in possession of the composite premises since 1948 and operated a saw-mill business

The landlord filed a suit for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, on grounds of bona fide requirement for construction, non-user, and unlawful sub-letting

The Trial Court (1999) and the Appellate Court (2004) granted a partial eviction decree, ordering the tenant to vacate Survey No. 15-A (open land) while allowing them to retain Survey No. 8-A (where the structures stood)

The tenant challenged this partial decree via a Writ Petition, arguing that Survey No. 15-A was not "land appurtenant" to the structures and thus not subject to eviction under Section 13(1)(ii)

1. Whether Survey No. 15-A constitutes "land appurtenant" to the buildings under Section 5(8)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, thereby justifying an eviction decree under Section 13(1)(ii)

2. Whether the expression "appurtenant" must be interpreted in its primary/technical sense or a broader secondary sense

Section 13(1)(ii) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which permits eviction from land appurtenant to a building for the purpose of erecting a new building

Section 5(8)(b), which includes land appurtenant to a building in the definition of "premises"

Morarji Goculdas Deoji Trust v. Madhav Vithal Kudwa (1982), establishing that "appurtenant" is a term of variable import and is a mixed question of fact and law

Sakeena v. Kusumbi (1982), which held that "appurtenant" should be interpreted in a secondary, non-technical sense to include adjoining land treated as part of a consolidated property

The court rejected the tenant's argument for a restrictive/primary definition of "appurtenant." Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the lease was "composite," covering both plots and structures as a single unit

The Petitioner (DW-1) admitted that the premises were taken as "open space and house together" and that there was no physical division between the plots

The court reasoned that since the land was used in conjunction with the business office and shed located on the adjoining survey number, a clear nexus and co-relation existed

The court further observed that the lower courts had struck a "balance" by granting only partial eviction, which protected the landlord’s right to develop the open land while allowing the tenant to continue business operations in the existing structures on Survey No. 8-A

The partial eviction decree was upheld, and the Petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession of Survey No. 15-A within eight weeks. All pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs