On a consideration of the facts of the case, we feel that there are no grounds for interfering with the decree passed by the High Court for possession not only of the vacant plot but also of the superstructure and mesne profits and arrears of rent. The law provides for the tenant to remove the superstructure on the termination of the tenancy. If it is not thus removed the tenant loses all his rights to the superstructure and the landlord becomes entitled to it. But in a case where there is a substantial building, it is only reasonable that the Court should explore the possibility of payment of some compensation to the tenant who had put up this structure. But in the connection we are reminded that for several years neither the arrears of rent nor the taxes amounting to several lacs of rupees had been paid by the tenant. Not only the tenant but several persons who have put up flats at their own costs may press their claim for compensation and it will be difficult to determine as to who are entitled to compensation and proportion of the compensation to which they will be entitled to.
11. The Apex Court thus highlighted that if the tenant does not remove the superstructure on termination of tenancy, he loses his rights to the super structure and the landlord becomes entitled to it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 1343 of 1989
Decided On: 19.12.2000
Norman Joseph Ferreira Vs. Arjandas Newandram
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M. Lodha, J.
Citations: 2001 (3) BomCR 475, (2001) 2 BOMLR 731, 2001 (2) MhLj 810
