9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d were rejected. The appellate authority before whom an appeal was filed by the present appellant dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 4th April, 1998 and upheld the judgment passed by the Rent Controller. The Revision filed thereafter in the High Court was dismissed on 25th May, 1998. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that since the appellant had given an undertaking before the High Court that he would vacate the shop in question by a specific date provided he was granted time for that purpose, the present appeal is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the High Court judgment which relates to this undertaking is reproduced below: Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner be allowed some reasonable time to vacate the premises. He undertakes on behalf of the petitioner to hand over vacant possesion to the landlord on or before September 1, 1998 and also undertakes to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, together with future rent within two weeks from today. In case the petitioner deposits the arrears of rent, if any, alongwith future rent within two weeks, the ejectment order against him will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant under the lease deed dated 21.3.1982 which recites that it was let out for the business of MANIYARI (General Merchant) Readymade Cloth Merchant . Section 13 of the Act, inter alia, provides as under : 13(1).................. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller, for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied ---- (i) .................. (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of the 1949 Act, without the written consent of the landlord, -- (a) ............ (b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. This Section specifically provides that if the Rent Controller is satisfied that the tenant is using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, it would order eviction of the tenant on the application of the landlord. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that under Section 2 of the Act, the building is divided into two categories -- (i) commercial/non-residential, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case under Section 13 of the Act which is presently under our consideration, the shop which was let out for running the business of English Liquor Vend was used for General Merchandise. It was held that it would not amount to change in user. It was further held as under : The business purposes must be adjudged in the light of the purposes of the Rent Act in question which is to control the eviction of tenants therefrom. In the expanding concept of business now-a-days and the growing concept of departmental stores, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that there was any change of user in the facts of this case which would attract the mischief of the provisions of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. The building was rented for purpose of carrying on a business, using it for another business, it will not in any way impair the utility or damage the building and this business can be conveniently carried on in the said premises. There was no nuisance created. In yet another decision in Grudial Batra vs. Raj Kumar Jain (1989) 3 SCC 441, AIR 1989 SC 1841, a similar provision under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 came to be considered. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the business of sugarcane crushing. The tenant used it for selling cloth and readymade clothes. This Court did not interfere with the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority and the High Court that there was a change of user as the land let out to the tenant was not being used for the purpose for which it was let out. The tenant was held liable for eviction. In Bishamber Dass Kohli (D) by LRs. vs. Satya Bhalla (Smt.), (1993) 1 SCC 566, the Court held that if the building was let out solely for residence, but in a part of the building a lawyer s office was established without the written permission of the landlord, it would amount to a change in the user and consequently the tenant would be liable to be evicted. The Punjab Haryana High Court in Om Prakash vs. Parmeshri Dass 1984(1) All India RCJ 241 held that a tenant to whom the shop was let out for carrying on the business as General Merchant and Kirana had changed his business and started a tea-stall where he was also selling cold drinks, would be treated to have changed the user and the tenant was liable to eviction. The same High Court in Pratap Singh vs. Ajmer Singh 1984 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
