The landlord's acquiescence or waiver of a breach of a lease agreement does not bar the landlord's right to evict the tenant for a subsequent breach of the lease agreement.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAJIRDAR, J.:---The facts involved in his petition are very few though the scope of the inquiry has been widened by the considerable industry which Shri Ajit P. Shah, appearing for the first petitioner, has brought to bear on this matter. The first petitioner was a tenant of a room measuring 19 x 14 and situated in building No. 427/428-A at Budhwar Peth in Pune City. He came into possession of the suit room, hereinafter referred to as the suit premises, pursuant to a rent note executed on 1st of October, 1957. The said rent note has specifically mentioned that the first petitioner hereinafter referred to for brevitys sake as "the petitioner", was to conduct the business of milk in the suit premises. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner while the third petitioner is the firm of the first two petitioners. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the building in which the suit premises are situated and, therefore, the landlords of the petitioners.

2. Having noticed that the petitioners were about to use the suit premises for the purpose of workshop by installing heavy machinery in the same, the respondent sent a notice to them on 13th of March, 1975 terminating the tenancy of the petitioners. By the said notice the petitioner was also called upon not to use the suit premises for the purpose contemplated by him. Despite this it was found by the respondents that the petitioners installed the machinery and started using the suit premises for a purpose other than the one for which it has been originally let out. The respondents, therefore filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 2947 of 1976 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune on 20th of October, 1976.

3. In the said suit the second and the third petitioners were added as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the first petitioner had illegally sublet the suit premises in their favour. Though the trial Court several grounds were urged in support of the prayer for eviction and the trial Court itself accepted some of them for passing the decree for eviction, ultimately the ground which remains for consideration by me is the ground which is mentioned in section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act", read with section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. It means that the petitioner has used the suit premises for a purpose other than the one for which it was leased. From the discussion in the judgment of the appeal Court below I also notice that the decree is further based upon a finding that the petitioner has into used the suit premises without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous period of 6 months immediately proceeding the date of the suit. These two grounds, namely using the suit premises for a purpose for which they were not let out as mentioned in section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, and not using the suit premises for a period of 6 months or more immediately proceeding the date of the suit for the purpose for which they were let out and that too without a reasonable cause are apparently overlapping and Shri Shah has justifiably advanced some arguments upon the same.

4. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 9th of June, 1978 decreed the suit for possession. He also passed certain consequential orders. This decree of the trial Court was challenged by all the three petitioners in Civil Appeal No. 298 of 1978 which was heard and dismissed by the learned Extra Joint Judge of Pune by his judgment and order dated 15th of July, 1978. I would mention her again that the learned Extra Joint Judge upheld the decree for eviction on the ground mentioned in section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act read with section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act as well as the ground mentioned in section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act . It is this decree which is the subject-matter of the challenge in this pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document