Back
1999 Supreme(All) 733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. Gupta, J.
HAR SWARUP NIGAM - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 32801 Of 1996
Decided On : 05/15/1999
B.D.Mandhyan, G.S.Srivastava, K.M.Dayal, OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAV
A tenant may be evicted if he uses the tenanted building for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy or otherwise does any act which is inconsistent with such use.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION SUIT - INCONSISTENT USER - BUILDING LET OUT FOR LIBRARY AND OFFICE PURPOSE - TENANT USING IT FOR JUDO KARATE CENTRE, CLINIC FOR DISABLED PERSONS AND TRAINING CENTRE FOR TAILORING, STITCHING, EMBROIDERY, ETC. - HELD, SUCH ACTIVITIES AMOUNT TO INCONSISTENT USER AND TENANT LIABLE TO EVICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent, substantial damage, material alteration, subletting, and denial of title. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground of inconsistent user, but the revisional court reversed the finding and dismissed the suit. The landlord challenged the revisional court's decision in this writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the revisional court erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the issue of inconsistent user. The court found that the tenant's activities in the tenanted building, such as running a Judo Karate Centre, clinic for disabled persons, and Training Centre for Tailoring, Stitching, Embroidery, etc., amounted to inconsistent user and were prejudicial to the landlord's interest. The court also found that the revisional court failed to consider the evidence adduced by the landlord on this issue.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant's activities in the tenanted building amounted to inconsistent user? 2. Whether the revisional court erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the issue of inconsistent user?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tenant's activities in the tenanted building, such as running a Judo Karate Centre, clinic for disabled persons, and Training Centre for Tailoring, Stitching, Embroidery, etc., amounted to inconsistent user and were prejudicial to the landlord's interest. The court relied on the provisions of Section 20 (2) (d) of the U. P. Rent Control Act, which provides that a tenant may be evicted if he uses the tenanted building for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy or otherwise does any act which is inconsistent with such use. 2. The court held that the revisional court erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the issue of inconsistent user. The court found that the revisional court failed to consider the evidence adduced by the landlord on this issue and that the revisional court's finding was based on a misreading of the evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, set aside the judgments of the trial court and the revisional court on the issue of inconsistent user, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision on this issue.
( 1 ) THIS is landlords petition.
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to premises No. 5-A Elgin Road, Allahabad which is a part of premises no. 5 Elgin Road. Allahabad. The petitioner is the landlord of the same wherein respondent No. 3 is a tenant at the rate of 21. 25 paise per month. Suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages was filed by the petitioner against the tenant respondent No. 3 on Small Cause court side, inter alia, on the grounds that the tenant committed default in payment of rent, that the tenant and its Chaukidar will fully cause substantial damage to the tenanted building thereby diminishing its value and utility and causing its disfiguration ; that the tenant has sublet the tenanted accommodation without the consent of the landlord ; that the tenanted accommodation was being used by the tenant for the purpose other than for which the same was let out and that the petitioner has denied the title of the landlord and has renounced his character as tenant.
( 3 ) SUIT was contested by the defendant respondent No. 3 and the plaint allegations were denied.
( 4 ) IN support of his case plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and produced Sri Ratnakar chaudhary as P. W. 2 Plaintiff also filed a number of documents. From the side of the tenant. Dr. Atul Kumar and Ram Nath were examined as D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 respectively.
( 5 ) THE trial court decided the issues of default in payment of rent, subletting, material alteration and denial of title against the petitioner landlord. However, plaintiffs suit for ejectment was decreed on the ground of inconsistent user on a finding that the tenanted accommodation was let out only for library and office purpose but the tenant has used the same for inconsistent purpose as such he was liable to eviction under Section 20 (2) (d) of the U. P. Act No. XI11 of 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Aggrieved by the decree of the trial court, the respondent No. 3 filed S. C. C. Revision No. 140 of 1996 while the petitioner landlord filed Revision No. 187 of 1996 challenging the decision of the trial court on the issue of default, subletting, material alteration, denial of title. The revisional court by the judgment dated 23. 9. 1996 allowed the revision filed by the defendant-respondent and dismissed the one filed by the petitioner-landlord and accordingly petitioners suit has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord petitioner has come up before this Court in this writ petition.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri K. M. Dayal and learned counsel for the respondent shri B. D. Mandhyan were heard at a considerable length.
( 7 ) SHRI K. M. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner landlord in the course of his arguments attacked the findings of the trial court recorded on issues in respect of default in payment of rent, substantial damage, material alteration, subletting and denial of title. He further vehemently challenged the order of the revisional court whereby the finding of the trial court recorded on the issue of inconsistent user has been reversed. On the other hand. Shri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the revislonal court whereby the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed. It would be appropriate take up each relevant issue separately. Default in payment of rent
( 8 ) THE plaintiff in his pleadings alleged that the defendant tenant was habitual defaulter and a bad pay master and rent since February. 1983. was not paid despite repeated demands and service of registered notice dated 10. 1. 1985. This allegation was specifically denied by the tenant. On appraisal of evidence, the trial court recorded a finding of fact that the last notice of demand was sent on 9,3. 1987 whereas rent from February, 1983 to October. 1s83 stood deposited under Section 30 (1) of the Act hence, no rent was due when the notice of demand was served. The trial court further found that since the d
