VERY IMPORTANT POINT
If tenant uses the shop for a different purpose than the one specified in the rent deed, the tenant will be liable to be evicted on the ground of change of user of shop.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section 10(2)(ii)(b)-Eviction on ground of change of user-Premises let out only for carrying on business in dealing radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture-Rent deed prohibited tenant from carrying on any other business-Tenant carrying on grocery business in addition-Change of user of business in contradiction to specific terms of agreement-Eviction order justified.
       Held : There is specific clause which states "shall be used by the tenant only for carrying on his own business...and the tenant shall not carry on any other business than the above said business". By the use of the words only with reference to the tenant doing business coupled with the last three lines, namely, "the tenant shall not carry on any other business than the above said business", clearly spells out the intend of the parties which restricts the user of the tenanted premises, only for the business which is stated therein and no other. In order to meet this, learned counsel for the appellant referred to Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act and language of Section 10(2)(ii)(b) which are similar hence he submits interpretation has to be given in a broader perspective, that is the use of building by the tenant should not be such as to damage it or diminishes its value and restriction if any could be that if it was given for business it should not be used for residential purpose and vice versa. We have not hesitation to reject this. If such an interpretation is given, it would make any specific term of a valid agreement redundant. Once parties enter into a contract then every word stated therein has to be given its due meaning which reveals the rights and obligations between the parties. No part of the agreement or words used therein could be said to be redundant. Such restriction could only be if any statute or provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 specifies, which is none. Nor we find any restriction by Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. In fact, Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act starts with the words "in the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary". In other words, it permits contract to the contrary mentioned under that Section. (Para 10)
       With regard to the ground of eviction contained in Section 10(2)(ii)(b) change in user of the building is alone significant for considering the ground. The courts below have rightly decreed the suit for eviction as against the appellant and change of user of the business by the appellant s from radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture to grocery business is in contradiction to the specific term of the agreement. Thus such tenant would be covered by Section 10(2)(ii)(b). Hence the appellant is liable for eviction which the courts below have rightly decreed. (Paras 15 & 16)

JUDGMENT

Misra, J.-The question raised in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. The question is whether in terms of the rent agreement between the appellant (tenant) and the respondent (landlord), if the tenant uses the shop for a different purpose than the one specified therein will he be liable for eviction?

2. The short facts are, a rent agreement was entered into between respondent No. 1 and one Mr. T.S. Arulrayar (the grandfather of the appellant) under which the disputed shop was rented out. The relevant portion of the rent agreement which requires our consideration is reproduced below :-

"...shall be used by the tenant only for carrying on his own business dealing in radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture and for non-residential purposes and the tenant shall not carry on any other business than the above said business."

(Emphasis supplied)

On 12th April, 1979 a legal notice was sent by the landlady to the said T.S. Arulrayar terminating his tenancy on two grounds, the wilful default in payment of rent and using the shop for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. This was followed by filing of petition before the rent controller in which it was stated that the tenant is also doing the business of provisions such as chilies, dals and other condiments etc., which is other than the one for which he took the accommodation on rent. The tenant denied it and asserted, if the rent-deed is read as a whole it cannot be said that it was for any specified purpose but was given broadly for doing business but was not for residential purpose. Thus, it cannot be termed as a different user. The rent controller finally decreed the suit by holding that tenant is also carrying on the business of provisions, which is other than the one mentioned in the rent deed which would be a different user, hence ordered for his eviction. Thereafter the said T.S. Arulrayar filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which also confirmed the aforesaid judgment. Next civil revision was filed before the High Court. The High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority, relying on M.K.P. Chettiar v. A.P. Pillay1, for recording, whether the tenant was using substantial portion of the disputed shop for a different user. After remand the Appellate Authority once again decreed the eviction suit recording substantial portion being put to different user. The appellant s grievance is that the said Authority did not record any finding as to the area actually used by him for a different purpose. The inference of a different use of substantial portion was only drawn since appellant could not produce the accounts books relating to the grocery business. The challenge was also that the said Authority wrongly placed burden of proof on the tenant instead on the landlord, hence filed the revision before the High Court. During pendency of the same, Mr. T.S. Arulrayar died and the present appellant and respondent No. 2 were brought as his legal representatives. The High Court also confirmed the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by this the present appeal is filed.

3. The thrust of submission by learned senior Counsel for the appellant is that the shop was given on tenancy for doing business and even if the appellant changes his business or undertook another business from dealings in radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture to the grocery business; would still be a business and such a change would not affect his right to use it as such. Broadly, tenancies are either for residential or commercial use. Since the change of business does not change its use from commercial it would not constitute this to be a ground for his eviction. To substantiate this, he made reliance on Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, which is quoted hereunder :-

"108. Rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee-

.......................................

(o) the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 465

VERY IMPORTANT POINT If tenant uses the shop for a different purpose than the one specified in the rent deed, the tenant will be liable to be evicted on the ground of change of user of shop.

Cases Referred (7)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
If tenant uses the shop for a different purpose than the one specified in the rent deed, the tenant will be liable to be evicted on the ground of change of user of shop.