Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between a landlord and tenant regarding the use of premises let out for business purposes. The landlord, Bharat Lal Baranwal, sought eviction of the tenant, Virendra Kumar Agarwal, who had started using the premises for manufacturing activities without obtaining written consent. The premises were originally let out in 1970 for selling copies and books, but by 1976, the tenant began manufacturing copies and other items, and in 1982, installed a printing machine. The landlord's father, the original landlord, had not objected to these changes during his lifetime. The Trial Court found that the tenant's use did not violate the tenancy terms and dismissed the eviction suit. The Revisional Court, however, ruled that the tenant's change of use was unauthorized and granted eviction. The tenant then challenged this in the High Court, which reversed the Revisional Court's decision, citing precedents that allowed for ancillary uses. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, particularly Section 20(2)(d), which mandates written consent for any change of use. The Court concluded that the tenant's actions constituted a change of user without consent, thus making him liable for eviction. The Supreme Court restored the Revisional Court's order, allowing the tenant until June 30, 2003, to vacate the premises while ensuring payment of any due rent. The Court did not impose costs.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Change of User - Eviction for Unauthorized Use - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 20(2)(d) - Tenant changed the use of the premises from business to manufacturing without written consent of the landlord, making him liable for eviction. The court held that written consent was mandatory for any change of user, and the tenant's actions constituted a violation of the tenancy terms (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant is liable to be evicted for using the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out without the landlord's written consent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court accepted the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Revisional Court's decree for eviction. The tenant was granted time until June 30, 2003, to vacate the premises, with conditions regarding payment of rent.
Law Points
- Eviction
- Change of User
- Written Consent
- U.P. Urban Buildings Act
- 1972
- Jurisdictional Fact
