JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the High Court of Calcutta dated January 25, 1985 in Appellate Decree No. 77/84 confirming the decree of ejectment passed by the civil and appellate courts against the appellant. One of the pleas raised by the respondent is that the appellant had violated clauses (m), (o), (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for short the Act, postulates that notwithstanding, anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein. Clause (b) provides that. "Where the tenant or any person residing in the premises let to the tenant has done any act contrary to the provisions of Clause (m), Clause (o) or Clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882." The Clause (o) of Section 108 provides that: "The lessee may use the property and its products, (if any) as a person of ordinary prudence would use them if they were his own but he must not use, or permit another to use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or fell or sell timber, pull down or damage buildings belonging to the lessor, or work mines or quarries not open when the lease was granted, or commit any other act which is destructive or permanently injurious thereto;" Clause (p) provides that : "he must not, without the lessor's consent, errect on the property any permanent structure, except for agricultural purposes." 2. The district court on obtaining the report of the Commissioner PW 12, who was examined in the case, found as a fact that :- "It is also in evidence of the pleader commissioner PW 1 Dilip Roy who inspected the suit premises on application of plaintiff being allowed, that he found an asbestos shed on the suit room fixed on the wooden frame, and he further saw broken tiles heaped up on the floor of next southern room and some broken tiles lying on the open court-yard. He further found new construction of bricks and cement on the southern wall of the suit room by about 8" and by about 16" on western wall reaching the asbestos roof. There is no evidence to the Court that the tiled roof of the suit room was in broken and dilapidated condition though there is only a notice by the tenant to the landlord to repair the suit room." 3. A reading of this finding would clearly show that the appellant had not effected any repairs but he made a structure or alteration and a new structure was brought out. It is the finding of both the courts and it cannot be disputed that he did not obtain any written permission from the respondent- landlord. Consent is absolutely necessary in terms of clause (p) of Section 108. In its absence, it is a contravention of Section 10(1)(b) of the Act. It is argued in the court of Rent Controller as well as appellate authority that he had the permission from the Rent Controller for effecting repairs since asbestos roof was leaking and therefore it is not an act contravening Section 108 and Section 13 (1)(b) of the Act. The Controller as well as District court found as a fact that no order giving permission was produced and consequently the action of the appellant was unauthorised. Even in this Court the appellant had not produced any such a permission given by the Rent Controller as contended for. The counter affidavit of the respondent filed in this court would show that no permission was obtained from him. Even if such a permission could be granted, it would be only for effecting minor repairs but not for making any structural changes of the premises occupied by the appellant. In view of the finding and the nature of the defence, the conclusion reached by the courts below that the appellant had made structural alteration without permission of the Controller or written consent of the landlord under clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, the appellant has contravened Section 13 (1)(b) of the Act, consequently the appellant became liable for ejectment. The decree for eviction granted is legal and does not warrant any interference. The appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Appeal dismissed.