D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the bombay Rent Act, 1947.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision are as under : the landlord-respondent filed a suit for eviction of revisionist and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits on ground of illegal sub-letting, causing, nuisance in the suit premises and further causing annoyance to the neighbouring occupiers, for change of user and breach of terms of tenancy.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant-tenant denying all these allegations and also disputing and challenging validity of the notice and further raising dispute regarding standard rent.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that the landlord-respondent failed to establish either of the three grounds for eviction of the tenant. Accordingly, the suit for eviction was dismissed, but decree for arrears of rent was passed.

( 5 ) AN appeal was preferred by the landlord which was allowed. The appellate court granted decree for eviction of the tenant-revisionist on the ground of change of user of the suit premises. Hence, this revision has been filed by the tenant.

( 6 ) THE landlord has not filed any revision or cross-objections, hence the findings of the two Courts below on sub-letting and nuisance need not be disturbed. Findings on these two points recorded by the two Courts below are against the respondentlandlord.

( 7 ) THE only short point for consideration in this revision is whether the decree of the appellate Court for eviction of the revisionist on the ground of change of user can be sustained.

( 8 ) THE trial Court on the basis of Division Bench announcement of this Court in the case of Bhabhutmal Rikhbaji Sharma v. Manubhai Madhavji Patel , reported in 1980 (XXI) GLR 242 came to the conclusion that since there was no rent note executed between the parties and further because the shop in question was taken on rent for running business mere change of business does not amount to change of user. It was the case that initially grocery and general merchandise business was being run by the tenant-in-chief-defendant No. 1. Subsequently, a new business of repairs of scooter and auto-vehicles was done in partnership with defendant No. 2. The question for consideration is whether change of business from grocery and general merchandise to a scooter repair shop amounts to change of user within the meaning of Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act or it amounts to breach of conditions of the tenancy within the meaning of Sec. 12 (1) of the Act or it amounts to non-user for a period of six months within the meaning of Sec. 13 (1) (k) of the act.

( 9 ) ON the facts and circumstances of the case Sec. 13 (1) (k) of the Act is not applicable. Sec. 13 (1) (k) provides that landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit.

( 10 ) IT is in evidence that at no point of time the shop was closed for good. On the other hand business was continuously carried on in the shop. Initially it was grocery business and then it was changed to a scooter repairing shops. The question whether such change of user amounts to breach of terms of tenancy within the meaning of Sec. 12 (1) of the Act will be dealt with in the following portions of the judgment. Likewise whether such user amounts to change of user within the meaning of Sec. 13 (1) (a) will also be dealt with in the subsequent portion of the judgment, but by no stretch of imagination it can be said that Sec. 13 (1) (k) is attracted for granting a decree for possession. There was no evidence that for a continuous period of six months immediately precedings the date of the suit the shop was not used for business purpose. As such Sec. 13 (1) (k) is not applicable.

( 11 ) COMING to Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Act it provides that a landl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document