Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"To substantiate the contention that due to the demolition of the walls the tenanted premises no longer exists, the respondent's photographs. The appellant also produced photographs and contended that they are repairing and renovating the suit premises in and in no manner they have demolished it. The trial court appointed the commissioner who submitted his report. On perusing the photographs produced by the appellants and commissioners report it does appear that the premises were demolished. The mere fact that the entire roof of the suit premises was removed and a portion of the middle wall was demolished. It can not be said that the entire suit premises was demolished. The report of the commissioner states that outer wall of the suit premises from mandovi side, external wall facing secretariat, the walls near the respective staircases are intact. Once there is a permission from the landlord to carry out the repairs and based on the no objection certificate the appellants obtained license from the municipality to carry out the repairs. Any acts on the part of the appellants done in respect of the suit premises for the purpose of repairing and renovating the same it cannot be said that the appellants are demolishing the suit premises. If any repairs of renovation in the suit premises are required to be done they will be always incidental to the expansion of the business for which the appellant get the permission from the head of the family of Casa Social Commission Mhamai."