Supreme Court Allows Tenant's Appeal Against Eviction Order — Change of User Not Established. The court found that the tenant's shift from liquor vend to general merchandise did not constitute a change of user under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.

In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a petition for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, based on alleged arrears of rent and change of user of the rented premises. The tenant had originally rented the premises for the purpose of running an English liquor vend but ceased this operation after the liquor license was not renewed and shifted to a general merchandise business. The landlord contended that this constituted a change of user, warranting eviction. The Rent Controller ruled in favor of the landlord, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the High Court. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the change in business did not alter the commercial nature of the use of the premises and was permissible under the terms of the rent note. The Supreme Court analyzed the purpose of the Rent Act and the definitions of change of user, referencing previous case law. It concluded that the tenant's new business did not impair the premises' utility or create nuisance, thus not constituting a change of user under the Act. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the eviction order, and directed that both parties bear their own costs.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Change of User - Definition of Change of User - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(2)(ii)(b) - The court held that the tenant's conversion of business from liquor vend to general merchandise did not constitute a change of user as it did not impair the utility of the premises nor create nuisance, aligning with the purpose of the Rent Act to control tenant eviction (Paras 349C-350E).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the tenant's change of business from liquor vend to general merchandise constituted a change of user under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the eviction order, and directed both parties to bear their own costs.

Law Points

  • Eviction
  • Change of User
  • Rent Control
  • Statutory Interpretation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1988 LawText (SC) (03) 27

Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1988

1988-03-23

Sabyasachi Mukharji, Rangnathan, S.

1988 AIR 1034, 1988 SCR (3) 345, 1988 SCC (2) 474

Dr. Meera Aggarwal, A.B. Rohtagi, Mukul Rohtagi, Atul Tewari, Ms. Bina Gupta

Mohan Lal

Jai Bhagwan

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.

Remedy Sought

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant.

Filing Reason

Alleged arrears of rent and change of user of the premises.

Previous Decisions

The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld the eviction; the High Court dismissed the civil revision.

Issues

Whether the tenant's change of business constituted a change of user under the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

The landlord argued that the change of business warranted eviction under the Act. The tenant contended that the change did not impair the premises' utility and was permissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a change of business from liquor vend to general merchandise did not constitute a change of user under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act, as it did not impair the utility of the premises or create nuisance.

Judgment Excerpts

The business purposes must be adjudged in the light of the purposes of the Rent Act in question which is to control the eviction of tenants therefrom. In the expanding concept of business nowadays and the growing concept of departmental stores, it cannot be said that there was any change of user in the instant case.

Procedural History

The landlord filed an eviction petition, the Rent Controller ruled for eviction, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, and the High Court upheld the eviction order before the tenant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973: Section 13(2)(ii)(b)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Railway Compensation Appeal Under Railways Act Due to Intoxication Exclusion
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses NHAI Appeal in Highway Construction Contract Dispute. Arbitral Award for Additional Costs and Embankment Work Upheld as Not Patently Illegal.