Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a landlord-tenant relationship where the landlord, Bishamber Dass Kohli, sought eviction of the tenant, Smt. Satya Bhalla, on the grounds of change of user of the premises. The premises were let out solely for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 550. However, the tenant's husband, a lawyer, established an office in part of the premises, prompting the landlord to file for eviction in February 1983 under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based on the change of user, which was upheld by the appellate authority. The tenant appealed to the High Court, which set aside the eviction order, ruling that the premises had become a 'scheduled building' due to the partial use as an office, thus negating the eviction ground. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court found that the change of user constituted a valid ground for eviction, emphasizing that even a small portion of the building being used for a non-residential purpose could change its character. The court rejected the tenant's arguments regarding waiver and acquiescence, stating that the landlord's rights were not forfeited by the tenant's actions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal, restoring the eviction order and directing the tenant to pay costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction Grounds - Change of User - Validity of Eviction - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2)(ii)(b) - Use of the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, without written consent of the landlord, constitutes a ground for eviction. The court held that breach of the covenant regarding the kind of user of the building let out is a valid ground for eviction under the Act. (Paras 177A-B) B) Building Classification - Scheduled Building - Definition and Implications - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Sections 2(g), 2(h) - A residential building becomes a scheduled building when used for a scheduled purpose without the landlord's consent. The court clarified that even partial use for a non-residential purpose can change the character of the building, thus justifying eviction. (Paras 176F-G)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the change of user of a part of the residential building constituted a valid ground for eviction under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the eviction order made by the Rent Controller. The tenant was directed to pay costs to the landlord.
Law Points
- Eviction grounds
- Change of user
- Residential building
- Scheduled building
- Written consent
