17-CRA-132-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 132 OF 2018 Shri Ganu Dhondu Khopkar(deceased) thr. Lrs … Applicants vs. Shri Ashok Prabhakar Mastakar and Anr … Respondents Mr. Sameer Tendulkar a/w. Mr. Akshay Nawar for Applicants Mr. Prasad M. Gaonkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER: 1. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendant(tenant) to challenge the judgment and decree for eviction passed by the appeal court on the ground of construction of a permanent structure without permission of the landlord. The suit was filed on the ground of unauthorised permanent construction carried out without permission and default. The trial court had decreed the suit on the ground of default. In the appeal preferred by the defendant, the landlord Page no. 1 of 5 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.09.24 18:57:55 +0530 17-CRA-132-2018.doc had filed a cross-objection seeking a decree on the ground of permanent construction. The appeal court has reversed the decree on the ground of default; however, has allowed the cross-objection and passed a decree on the ground of permanent construction without permission of the landlord. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the erstwhile landlord had granted permission in 1993. The present plaintiff is an auction purchaser who purchased the property in 1997. Since, the construction was carried out as per the permission granted by the erstwhile landlord, the decree on the ground of permanent construction would not be sustainable. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants relies upon a letter dated 10th April 1993, issued to the defendant’s father for repair permission. He also relies upon the findings recorded by the trial court holding that the construction was not unauthorised as the corporation had not taken any action of demolition despite issuing notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. He submits that as per the corporation’s policy, all the constructions carried out prior to 1997 were Page no. 2 of 5 17-CRA-132-2018.doc protected; hence, no action was taken. He therefore submits that the decree for eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction without permission would not be sustainable. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, the impugned judgment and decree would warrant an interference by this court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned decree. He submits that the letter relied upon by the applicants was not admitted in evidence. He submits that the inaction on the part of the corporation in not demolishing the premises or any policy protecting unauthorised construction would be irrelevant for deciding whether the permanent constructions are carried out without the landlord's permission. He submits that even otherwise the trial court’s findings relied upon by the applicants stating that the corporation had granted permission to the defendant to carry out repairs are rightly reversed by the appeal court, as the permission was not produced on record. 5. I have perused the papers of the application. The Page no. 3 of 5 17-CRA-132-2018.doc landlord has alleged that the defendant has carried out construction of a mezzanine floor without seeking any permission. The copy of the written permission relied upon by the applicants is not admitted in evidence. Hence, the appeal court has refused to accept the same as any valid proof of a written consent of the erstwhile landlord for carrying out construction. Even otherwise, the letter dated 10th April 1993, relied upon by the applicants, is for repair permission. The said letter nowhere refers to any permission for carrying out construction of the mezzanine floor. Hence, the appeal court has rightly refused to accept it as a valid permission of the erstwhile landlord for carrying out construction. 6. The regularisation of the unauthorised construction, as held by the trial court, is reversed by the appeal court by holding that the same would not be of any relevance if the construction is proved to have been carried out without the permission of the landlord. The construction carried out by the defendant is therefore held as unauthorized construction of permanent nature without the written consent of the landlord. In the absence of any evidence to show that the construction was Page no. 4 of 5 17-CRA-132-2018.doc with consent, the findings recorded by the appeal court would not warrant any interference. I do not find any jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment warranting any interference in the exercise of the power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. The civil revision application is devoid of any merit. The civil revision application is therefore dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 5 of 5