Whether landlord can seek eviction of tenant from residential premises for starting business in said premises?

Besides the abovesaid subsequent development, there is another vital matter which has been overlooked by the lower Court, inasmuch as, admittedly, the suit premises were let out to the original tenant (predecessor of the petitioner) for residential purpose and were/are being used as such, but the respondent No. 1 landlord has invoked the ground of bona fide requirement for starting business in the suit premises. Section 25 of the Act clearly prohibits conversion of residential into non-residential premises. In view of this prohibition it is not open for the respondent No. 1 to use the suit premises for any other use but residential purpose. Understood thus, the ground of bona fide pressed by the respondent No. 1 is therefore unavailable in law. Taking any view of the matter, the decree of possession passed against the petitioner-tenant in respect of the suit premises, therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned Order passed by the Appellate Court directing the petitioner tenant to deliver possession of suit premises is set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 4423 of 1989

Decided On: 05.07.2001

Avinash V. Mhapankar Vs. Prabhakar S. Kelkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Citation: 2001(4) MHLJ220,2001(4) Bom CR708

Print Page

Supreme Court dismisses PIL to stop usage of religious symbols for business purposes

A Public Interest Litigation came up before the 3 Judges Bench of Supreme Court of India yesterday, praying ‘to stop the use of names and images of gods and goddesses for commercial exploitation’.  The court dismissed the petition remarking that “You have raised the issue which concerns the faith of the people. This country has 33,000 crore gods. Sorry.”

The bench asked the Lawyer who appeared for the petitioner “A businessman can keep the name of Laxmi stores. Can he not name his daughter Laxmi? I like to worship that God. I want to put the name and I want to have the image of that particular God. How can somebody stop?” The bench felt that there is no need to stop anybody from using the name of a god or putting the image of any god on the nameplates or packaging as it is only reflective of his faith in that particular god and no one has right to question his right to have faith in that particular god. A follower of Lord Balaji can both name his son and carry his business in the name of Balaji, the bench opined holding that there is nothing wrong in using symbols of faith in business.

Print Page