1. Landlord's appeal for eviction of tenant — breach of tenancy terms — conversion of residential premises to commercial use for power looms — Bombay Rent Act, 1947. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOTIRAM DAYARAM (DEAD) by lrs.
Vs.
CHIMANLALATMARAM
Decided on August 1,1996
A tenant's use of residential premises for commercial purposes constitutes a breach of Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, entitling the landlord to recover possession, even if no physical damage to the property is proven.
Headnote:
Transfer of Property Act, Section 108 (0) – Bombay Rent Act, 1947 – Section 13 (l) (a) – Appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant, inter alia, on the ground that he committed breach of the terms of tenancy so much so that the ground floor of the premises let out for residential purposes, was being used for running power looms, weaving machines, etc – Trial court decreed the suit – Appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court – High court in its revisional jurisdiction upset the findings of the two courts below on the short ground that it was not shown that the change of user had caused any damage to the property – This appeal by the landlord is against the judgment of the High court –Held, IT is the admitted case that the ground floor of the premises in dispute is not being used for the purpose for which it was let out to the tenant – It is not disputed that the premises was taken on rent by the tenant for residential purposes, but later on he converted it for commercial purpose – Tenant has on the face of it violated the provisions of Section 108 (0 of the Transfer of Property Act, which specifically says "but he must not use, or permit another use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased – Landlord is, therefore, entitled to recover the possession from the tenant on the plain language of Section 108 (0 read with Section 13 (l) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 – Even otherwise we are not impressed by the argument that no damage was caused to the premises. Converting residential premises into a sort of mini-textile factory is surely going to affect the residential utility of the premises – Appeal is allowed.
Act Referred
BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT: S.13(1)(o)
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.108(o)
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.108(o)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether change of user from residential to commercial purposes without causing physical damage to the property constitutes a valid ground for eviction. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. Converting residential premises into a textile factory violates the lease purpose and affects residential utility, regardless of whether physical damage to the property occurred. (Para 3 )
4. Use of leased property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased constitutes a breach under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial Court decree for eviction restored. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. Does a change of user from residential to commercial purpose justify eviction under the Transfer of Property Act?
Yes. Under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lessee must not use the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. Such a violation entitles the landlord to recover possession. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Is proof of physical damage to the property necessary to establish a breach of tenancy for change of user?
No. The court held that converting residential premises into a commercial entity, such as a mini-textile factory, affects the residential utility of the premises, making the lack of physical damage irrelevant to the breach of the lease purpose. (Para 3 )
8. How does the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 interact with the Transfer of Property Act regarding breach of tenancy?
Section 13(l)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 provides for eviction if the tenant commits any act contrary to the provisions of clause (o) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (Para 2 , 3 )
( 1 ) THIS is a landlords appeal. The appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant, inter alia, on the ground that he committed breach of the terms of tenancy so much so that the ground floor of the premises let out for residential purposes, was being used for running power looms, weaving machines, etc. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court. The High court in its revisional jurisdiction upset the findings of the two courts below on the short ground that it was not shown that the change of user had caused any damage to the property. This appeal by the landlord is against the judgment of the High court.
( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 13 (l) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and clause (o) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which are relevant, are as under:
"13. (l) (o) that the tenant has committed any act contrary to the provision of clause (o) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882;"
"108. (o) 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;"
( 3 ) IT is the admitted case that the ground floor of the premises in dispute is not being used for the purpose for which it was let out to the tenant. It is not disputed that the premises was taken on rent by the tenant for residential purposes, but later on he converted it for commercial purpose. The tenant has on the face of it violated the provisions of Section 108 (0 of the Transfer of Property Act, which specifically says "but he must not use, or permit another use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased". The landlord is, therefore, entitled to recover the possession from the tenant on the plain language of Section 108 (0 read with Section 13 (l) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. Even otherwise we are not impressed by the argument that no damage was caused to the premises. Converting a residential premises into a sort of mini-textile factory is surely going to affect the residential utility of the premises. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High court. We set aside the High court judgment and restore that of the trial court as upheld by the appellate court and direct the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute.
( 4 ) THE appeal is allowed. No costs.
( 5 ) KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances of the case, specially that the respondent shall have to remove his power looms and machinery fromthe premises, we give time to the respondent to vacate the premises on or before 31/8/1997 on the respondents filing usual undertaking in this court within eight weeks.
