Unauthorized structural alterations and acquisition of alternate residence by a spouse constitute valid grounds for tenant eviction.

The Applicant-Landlord filed a suit for eviction against the Respondent-Tenants regarding Flat No. 5, House No. 139-T, Santacruz (West), Mumbai, under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodgings House Rates Control Act, 1947.

The suit was based on multiple grounds, including bona fide requirement, non-user, nuisance, and unauthorized permanent alterations.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, finding the grounds of nuisance, acquisition of alternate residence, and unauthorized alterations proved.

On appeal, the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court reversed these findings and dismissed the suit, holding that the alterations were for "beneficial enjoyment" and reversible.

The Landlord challenged this reversal via the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the CPC.

Whether the tenant’s admitted alterations, including shifting the kitchen and removing internal walls without consent, constitute "permanent structures" under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

Whether the acquisition of a residential flat in Pune by the tenant’s husband constitutes the acquisition of "suitable residence" by the tenant under Section 13(1)(l).

Whether the unauthorized construction of a concrete elevation at the building entrance and water seepage from plants constitute "nuisance and annoyance" under Section 13(1)(c).

The Court applied Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act regarding unauthorized permanent structures and Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.

It relied on *Najama Gulab Bagwan v. Laxmibai Rangildas Gujar*, establishing that unilateral construction without written landlord consent falls under Section 13(1)(b).

*Ramrao Balaji Kothare v. Lila*, which held that removing a wall to merge rooms is a permanent alteration.

Regarding alternate residence, the court applied Section 13(1)(l) and relied on *B.R. Mehta v. Atma Devi*, holding that acquisition by a spouse constitutes a ground for eviction if the relationship is cordial.

For nuisance, it applied Section 13(1)(c), noting that "annoyance" is a subjective concept based on the perception of the neighboring occupant.

The High Court found the Appellate Court's reasoning "perverse" for stretching the concept of "beneficial enjoyment" to excuse significant structural changes.

The Court noted that the tenant’s son (D.W.1) expressly admitted to removing internal walls and shifting the kitchen twice without permission.

The Court rejected the Appellate Court’s dismissal of the Commissioner’s report on technical grounds, stating that once alterations are admitted, the absence of the original sanctioned plan is immaterial.

On the issue of alternate residence, the Court held that the Tenant (Defendant No. 1) had an enforceable right to reside in the Pune flat acquired by her husband, satisfying Section 13(1)(l).

Finally, regarding nuisance, the Court determined that the tenant's unauthorized concrete elevation at the entrance created unhygienic conditions and parking obstructions for the landlord (occupying the ground floor), which constituted "annoyance."

The Court held that the Respondents failed to justify major structural changes under the guise of beneficial enjoyment.

The Respondents were directed to hand over vacant possession within six weeks, subject to filing a written undertaking within two weeks.