Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. So the Issue No. 2 is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 3 : The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint, that the defendant made additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises without the consent of the landlord. The defendant has denied it in the written statement.

21. Mr. Satyabrata Das Gupta, the constituted attorney of the plaintiff has stated in answer to the question No. 15 that the defendant has converted a bathroom into a store room and has also a certain portion of the remaining bath room to a bathroom or something else. Mr. Das Gupta has complained that he could not get access and once when he could enter the flat he could see the above. I am of the view that if he plaintiffs were serious about the allegations that the defendant had made additions and alterations in the flat of the permanent nature it was well within its right, to apply for Engineer Commission to inspect the premises and ascertain about the said allegation. Mr. Satyabrata Sen the first witness for the defendant has, however, admitted that a minor alteration was made in the toilet block by changing a western type commode into an Indian type Pan (Question No. 22). He also states that the Caretaker was informed about that minor alteration-(Questions 24 and 25). In cross-examination he has stated that they asked for permission from the original plaintiff to convert one of the two latrines into a record room, that was not fully done and only the latrine was converted from western style to Indian style (Question No. 69). He has also stated that for that permission was taken. But no such written permission has been proved in this case. In answer to question No. 76 he has conceded that latrine has been converted into a record room. In answer to question No. 83 he has stated that a part of bathroom has been converted into a record room. Mr. Panchanan Dey, the other witness for the defendant also spoke of the conversion of a portion of the bathroom into a record room.

22. So, it is now an admitted fact that a bath room has practically been converted into a record room and the commode of the bath room has been changed into Indian Style Pan. When no written permission has been proved it can be held that no written permission was obtained. But it is a fact that permission was sought for. Be that as it may, can it said to be construction of a permanent nature? In my view the conversion of the bath room commode into Indian Style Pan is not a work of permanent nature. The conversion of the portion of the bath room into record room is not a construction of a permanent nature and the bath room can easily be restored to its former state as soon as the records are taken out. So, the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant made additions and alterations in the flat of permanent nature has not been substantiated. So this issue is answered against the plaintiff.