2000 (3) TMI 1084 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal.
2. Eviction on the ground of change of user of the shop.
3. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.
4. Reversion to original business and its impact on eviction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Preliminary Objection Regarding the Maintainability of the Appeal:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appellant's appeal was not maintainable because he had given an undertaking before the High Court to vacate the shop by a specific date. The High Court's judgment included the appellant's undertaking to vacate the premises by September 1, 1998, and to deposit arrears and future rent within two weeks. The respondent contended that filing the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court amounted to a breach of this undertaking. However, the Supreme Court overruled this objection, referencing the decision in *P.R. Deshpande vs. Maruti Balaram Haibatti* (1998) 6 SCC 507, which established that a tenant's right to approach the higher court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not affected by such an undertaking.

2. Eviction on the Ground of Change of User of the Shop:
The Rent Controller, the appellate authority, and the High Court had ordered the appellant's eviction on the ground that the shop was being used for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. The shop was leased for "Maniari (General Merchant) Readymade & Cloth Merchant" business, but the appellant had started using it as a restaurant and for selling sweetmeats. The Supreme Court examined whether this change constituted a change of user under Section 13 of the Act.

3. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973:
Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act provides that a tenant can be evicted if the building is used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The appellant argued that the categorization of buildings into commercial and residential should be the basis for determining change of user. The respondent contended that using the shop for a restaurant instead of the specified business violated the lease terms. The Supreme Court considered various precedents, including *Rattan Lal vs. Asha Rani* (1988) 3 SCC 586 and *Mohan Lal vs. Jai Bhagwan* (1988) 2 SCC 474, which suggested that a mere change of business does not amount to a change of user unless it changes the nature of the building or causes nuisance.

4. Reversion to Original Business and Its Impact on Eviction:
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had reverted to the original business during the pendency of the eviction petition and had been carrying on the original business for many years. Given that the change of business was temporary and the appellant had returned to the original business, along with the fact that other grounds for eviction (arrears of rent, structural alterations, and bona fide requirement) were rejected, the Court decided that the ends of justice would be better served by allowing the appellant to stay in the premises. The Court ordered the appellant to pay an increased rent of Rs. 1,500/- per month instead of the original Rs. 600/- per month.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by allowing the appellant to remain in the premises, subject to the condition of paying increased rent, and made no order as to costs.