Minor changes not cause for eviction

The ruling comes in response to a petition filed by Miraj-based Sangli district Kanji Malde against a Miraj trial court order evicting him from his tenanted shop. The respondent-landlord Balkrishna Namade had sought Malde8217;s eviction on the ground that he had made permanent alterations in the shop without prior permission. Malde had removed the wall on the rear side of the shop to fit a door.

Malde, represented by advocate S CDharmadhikari, moved the HC. He argued that mere removal of a wall does not materially alter the character of the premises. Dharmadhikari cited a Supreme Court judgement which states that the alteration has to be viewed in a balanced perspective.

Justice Datar ruled that the Miraj trial court did not apply its mind to the nature and purpose of Malde8217;s building alterations before evicting him. Instead of looking into Malde8217;s intentions, the court merely asked if the construction was of a permanent nature. It is obvious that Malde had made the alteration for 8220;better enjoyment of the place8221;, the judge concluded.Interestingly, both the tenant and landlord are dead and the present litigation was being fought by their legal inheritors.