Back
1982 Supreme(P&H) 192
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
I.S.Tiwana, J.
Satish Kumar Mittal
Versus
Nand Kumar Khosla, Advocate
Civil Revision No. 2723 of 1981,
Civil Misc. No. 1338 of 1982,1436 of 1982,1437 of 1982,
Decided On : MAY 31, 1982
A tenant is liable for eviction if he uses the building for a purpose other than the one for which it was leased out to him, without the written consent of the landlord.
Headnote:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 13(2)(II)(B) - CHANGE OF USER - PERSONAL REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, tenants of a shop-cum-flat, were ordered to be evicted on the grounds of change of user and the landlord's personal requirement. The petitioners challenged the order, arguing that the building was not a residential building and that the landlord had not proved a change of user or the genuineness of his requirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the building was a residential building as defined in the Act and that the petitioners had changed its user from residential to commercial without the landlord's written consent. The court also found that the landlord's requirement for the building was genuine, as he had vacated his previous accommodation and had no other suitable accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the building in question was a residential building or a non-residential building? 2. Whether the petitioners had changed the user of the building without the landlord's written consent? 3. Whether the landlord's requirement for the building was genuine?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the building was a residential building as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act, as it was not used solely for the purpose of business or trade. 2. The court found that the petitioners had changed the user of the building from residential to commercial without the landlord's written consent, as evidenced by their admission in the pleadings and the testimony of the landlord and his witnesses. 3. The court held that the landlord's requirement for the building was genuine, as he had vacated his previous accommodation and had no other suitable accommodation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the eviction order, allowing the petitioners three months to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.
I.S.Tiwana, J.
1. The petitioner-tenants have concurrently been ordered to be evicted from Shop-cum-flat (SCF) No. 15, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, belonging to respondent Nand Kumar Khosla, an Advocate by profession, on the ground that they were using the building in question for a purpose other than the one for which it was leased and the respondent-landlord bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation.
2. The relevant facts pleaded in the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are that the demised property which is a residential building, was constructed by Mr. L.N. Khosla (deceased), father of the respondent, and was initially let out to the petitioners for carrying on their business as `Karyana dealers and general merchants in the front portion (described as shop) on the ground floor and the rest of the premises, that is, the back portion on the ground floor and the first floor for residential purposes vide lease deed dated October 7, 1968 (Exhibit P.2), at a monthly rent of Rs. 285/-. Later, vide lease deed dated December 7, 1970, (Exhibit P.1) executed between the parties, the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month. In this deed too it was specifically mentioned that the petitioners would utilise the demised property for the above said proposes, that is, for their business as `Karyana dealers and general merchants and their residence. Mr. L.N. Khosla, father of the respondent died on June 21, 1971. He bequeathed his properties in favour of his heirs through a will and according to the same, the demised property (SCF No.15) fell to the share of the respondent and the residential house No. 153, Sector 9B, Chandigarh, where the respondent too was living at the time of the death of his father, to the share of his elder brother, Wing Commander S.K. Khosla. In these proceedings we are not concerned with the disposal of the rest of the properties of late Mr. L.N. Khosla.
3. Though the respondent-landlord had sought the ejectment of the petitioners on various grounds, such as, arrears of rent and impairing materially the value and utility of the building in question, yet he succeeded only on the above noted two grounds as already indicated. It is this aspect of the matter which is now assailed by the petitioners in this petition under Section 15(5) of the Act.
4. Mr. D.S. Nehra, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently urged that the building in question is not a residential building and thus the petitioners can neither be held guilty of changing its user to a commercial building nor can the respondent-landlord legally eject them on the ground of his personal requirement and in case it is held otherwise as has been done by the lower authorities, then the respondent has miserably failed to prove any change of user by the petitioners and to establish the bonafides of his requirement.
5. So far as the first aspect of the matter, i.e., the nature of the building is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submission made in view of the definitions of "non-residential building" and "residential building" as contained in clauses (d) and (g) respectively of Section 2 of the Act. Clause (d) defines a "non-residential building" as a building used solely for the purpose of business or trade. Apparently it is not so in the case in hand. The very nomenclature of the building a `shop-cum-flat indicates that the building is not meant solely for the purpose of business or trade. According to the averments and stand of the respondent-landlord it was neither being used nor meant to be used solely for that purpose. As per clause (g), a "residential building" means any building which is not a non-residential building. Thus obviously the building in question not being a building used or meant for purposes of business or trade alone, is to be treated as a residential building. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by an earlier
