The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of letting and the permissible use of the property must be adhered to, and the tenant cannot perpetuate misuse of the property.

RSA 95/2016

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed by the appellant/landlord impugning the concurrent judgment of the Courts below i.e. of the trial Court dated 1st October, 2014 and of the First Appellate Court dated 6th November, 2015 by which prayers by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction have been declined.

2. I have heard Mr.Brijendra Kulshrestha, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate for the respondents.

3. Mr.Brijendra Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the premises was let out for residential purpose to the Managing Director Sh.R.C.Agarwal (D-1) and the rent was paid by the AGSONS Agencies (I) Pvt.Ltd. (D-2). As the rent can be paid on behalf of the tenant by any other person/company but it does not have the effect that the person/company making the payment becomes the tenant. Another contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that if the Company was a tenant, then a board resolution authorizing the Company to take the premises on rent for commercial use must have been passed. The Company being a juristic entity, cannot act by entering into an oral contract. Induction of Ms.Usha Gupta in the suit premises amounts to subletting by tenant. It has also been urged before this Court that the Company was not having its registered office at the given address as it was used for residential purpose only. But subsequently, commercial activities started to which the landlord objected but no heed was paid by the tenant thereby compelling him to initiate legal action.

4. Apart from making oral submissions, written submissions have been filed on behalf of the respondents/tenant. Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 13th March, 2013 vide which the amendment seeking declaration on the basis of document titled as ‘Hiring of House’ Ex.PW1/3 dated 1st November, 1979 was declined. Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in eviction petitions wherein the tenancy has been pleaded to be oral and PW-1 Prem Prakash Sabherwal, during his cross examination in eviction petition, stated that the commercial activities are being carried on for about 25 years which if calculated from the date of deposition, goes to inception of the tenancy. It has also been argued that the Company could have entered into an oral contract with a private person as had been done in this case for which no board resolution was required. No structural changes have been made by the respondents and for renovation, no permission is required from the landlord. The property has not been sublet to anyone. Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior Advocate contended that there is concurrent findings on the facts on all the issues by the Courts below and no substantial question of law is involved in this case. In view of the limited scope within which the Court can consider the Regular Second Appeal, the same may be dismissed as the second appeal does not lie on question of fact or on law but only on existence of substantial question of law. It has also been contended that this Court cannot grant any relief to the appellant which is beyond pleading, any evidence which is led beyond pleadings, cannot be looked into to grant relief to the landlord hence exhibit PW-1/3 has to be excluded from the consideration zone as the landlord was never permitted to plead in respect of the said documents even when the application seeking amendment of plaint was partly allowed by the learned Trial Court and amendment seeking declaration on the basis of document titled as ‘Hiring of House’ Ex.PW1/3 dated 1st November, 1979 was declined for the reason that it was not part of the pleading and the trial has begun.

5. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents h