Sunday, 24 September 2017

When tenant shall not be evicted from tenanted premises on ground of change of user?

Tenancy - Eviction - Change of use - Material Alteration - Sections 10 and 11 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Appeal against Order of eviction - Eviction on ground of change of use and wastage committed by installing signboard, racks and taking three phase electricity connection - Building rented for the purpose of trade - Tenant initially started shoe mart - Tenant started readymade business later on - Eviction on ground of change of business can be ordered only in case where change of activity make it totally alien to the purpose for which building was rented - Eviction cannot be ordered if the basic activity remain the same even after change of business by tenant - Putting up of sign board cannot be treated as wastage entitling eviction - Nothing to show that any danger or impairment in the value of building due to three phase connection taken by tenant - Eviction petition devoid of merit and dismissed.


Civil Appeal No. 5751 of 2005 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24112 of 2002]

Decided On: 15.09.2005

Hari Rao Vs.N. Govindachari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.N. Srikrishna and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Print Page

When tenant is liable to be evicted from tenanted premises for change of user?

The question raised in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. The question is whether in terms of the rent agreement between the appellant (tenant) and the respondent (landlord), if the tenant uses the shop for a different purpose than the one specified therein will he be liable for eviction?
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties in our considered view the case cited on behalf of the appellants were all those where there was no specific clause restricting the use of the tenanted accommodation. On the other hand, in the case in hand, there is specific prohibition clause in the rent deed. In the present case there is specific clause which states "shall be used by the tenant only for carrying on his own business....and the tenant shall not carry on any other business than the above said business". By the use of the words 'only' with reference to the tenant doing business coupled with the last three lines, namely, "the tenant shall not carry on any other business than the above said business", clearly spells out the intend of the parties which restricts the user of the tenanted premises, only for the business which is stated therein and no other. In order to meet this, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act and language of Section 10(2)(ii)(b) which are similar hence he submits interpretation has to be given in a broader perspective, that is the use of building by the tenant should not be such as to damage it or diminishes its value and restriction if any could be that if it was' given for business it should not be used for residential purpose and vice versa. We have no hesitation to reject this. If such an Interpretation is given, it would make any specific term of a valid agreement redundant. Once parties enter into a contract then every word stated therein has to be given its due meaning which reveals the rights and obligations between the parties. No part of the agreement or words used therein could be said to be redundant.

Same is the position with regard to the ground of eviction contained in Section 13(2) wherein change in user of the building is alone significant for constituting the ground.

Civil Appeal No. 141150 of 1996

Decided On: 29.02.2000

M. Arul Jothi & Anr.Vs. Lajja Bal (Deceased) & Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Misra and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Citation: AIR 2000 SC 1122
Print Page

Whether sub tenant of property owned by government are entitled to get protection of rent law?

From the aforesaid it is graphically clear that an Insurance Company is not protected under the 1999 Act. Once it is held that Defendant No. 1, the New India Assurance Company, the original tenant, is not protected, the question would be whether a subtenant can be protected under the Act. In the case of Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra), it has been clearly laid down that Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act applies to premises and not to parties or their relationship. Section 3 uses the term 'premises'. The provision commences with the non-obstante clause that the Act does not apply to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority. Sub-Section 3(1)(b) makes it clear that the Act does not apply to any bank, public sector undertaking or certain other categories of tenants. The Insurance Company is covered under Section 3(1)(b). Thus, as a logical corollary, the Act does not apply to the premises held by the Insurance Company who is a tenant.

23. The learned Single Judge has allowed protection to the Government Department on the foundation that it has become a tenant. We are disposed to think that the analysis is fundamentally erroneous. When the Act does not cover the tenant, namely, the Insurance Company as basically the exemption applies only to premises and not to any relationship, the subtenant who becomes a deemed tenant cannot enjoy a better protection or privilege by ostracizing the concept of premises which is the spine of the provision.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3356-3357/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3273-327 of 2011)

Decided On: 03.04.2012

 Kesri Commissariat and Ors. Vs. Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dalveer Bhandari and Dipak Misra, JJ.
Print Page

Whether bombay rent Act is applicable to land belonging to government or local authority?

In Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay [1962] Su. 3 S.C.R. 461 this Court took the view that if the Government or a local authority wants to evict a person from land belonging to the Government or a local authority, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act do not come in the way. For the same reason, the suit for ejectment does not have to be filed in the Court of Small Causes as required by the Rent Control Act but in the City Civil Court. If the original lessees took on lease not only the land but also the building, it is not open to their assignees to claim that the ownership of the Government extended only to the land and not to the buildings. 
We can only observe that if the intention of the Legislature is that the protection should be given to the sub-lessee against the lessee in a building taken on lease by the lessee from the Government or a local authority, it is for the Legislature concerned to make appropriate amendments in the Bombay Rent Act and it is not open for us to rewrite the provisions of Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of any such intention as suggested by Dr. Chitale.


Civil Appeal No. 4248 of 1986

Decided On: 04.05.1988

Nagji Vallabhji and Company Vs. Meghji Vijpar and Company and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.S. Pathak, C.J. and M.H. Kania, J.
Citations: 1988 AIR 1313, 1988 SCR (3) 906
Print Page