Forfeiture for unauthorised construction requires proof of breach; uncorroborated evidence and no deliberate withholding defeated ejectment.

A landlord seeking eviction for forfeiture based on unauthorised construction must prove that the disputed structures were newly erected without the lessors' written consent. The court found the plaintiffs failed to discharge that burden: earlier permissions in 1951 and 1955 supported lawful construction, the sanctioned plans were not shown to have been deliberately withheld, the oral evidence was uncorroborated, and the correspondence and audited balance sheets did not establish construction in February 1962. No adverse inference was warranted. The suit for ejectment therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs proved that the defendant made unauthorised constructions in February 1962 without the lessors' written consent so as to entail forfeiture of the lease under the covenant in the lease deed.

Analysis: The burden lay on the plaintiffs to establish that the disputed structures were newly erected in 1962 without consent. The evidence showed that permissions had been granted in 1951 and 1955 for constructions in accordance with sanctioned plans, but the plans were not produced by either side and were not shown to have been deliberately withheld by the defendant. The court also found the oral evidence for the plaintiffs uncorroborated and insufficient, while the correspondence and audited balance sheets did not support the allegation that the constructions were made in 1962. In these circumstances, no adverse inference could properly be drawn against the defendant.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to prove breach of the lease covenant or forfeiture of the lease, and the suit for ejectment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A landlord seeking eviction on the ground of forfeiture for unauthorised construction must prove the breach, and an adverse inference for non-production of documents arises only where deliberate withholding is established.

---