Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a landlord-tenant relationship under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The respondent-landlord, owner of shop No.4 on the ground floor of a building in Ganesh Peth, Pune, had let out the premises to the petitioner-tenant. The tenancy commenced in 1977 when the parties exchanged shop No.1 for shop No.4, with a specific written endorsement on a rent receipt (Exhibit-18) that the premises would be used for residential purposes only. The tenant, initially a school teacher, used the premises as agreed until September 1981. Thereafter, without the landlord's consent, he began using the front portion for manufacturing hardboard boxes, later installing a machine for the business. Despite the landlord's initial written permission in May 1983 to install machinery, he promptly withdrew it in June 1983 on legal advice, citing the prohibition under Section 25 of the Act. The tenant continued the commercial use, leading the landlord to file a suit for eviction on grounds of change of user under Section 13(1)(a) and non-occupation under Section 13(1)(k) of the Act. The trial court and the appellate court both decreed the suit, holding that the premises were let exclusively for residential use and that the tenant had impermissibly changed the user. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the concurrent findings as perverse. He argued that the tenancy was composite, that the landlord had waived his right by granting permission, and that the lower courts erred in comparing signatures without expert evidence. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found no perversity. It noted that the endorsement on Exhibit-18 clearly proved the residential purpose; that the tenant's teacher status and lack of proof of prior business supported the finding; and that the municipal register entries or usage by adjacent shops could not establish composite tenancy. On the waiver point, the court held that Section 25 of the Act imposes a statutory prohibition, rendering the landlord's permission void and incapable of being waived. Regarding signature comparison, the court relied on Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits the court to compare signatures itself. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree and confirming that the concurrent findings of fact were not liable to interference under Article 227. The decision reinforced the principle that a tenant cannot unilaterally change the agreed purpose of letting, especially when such change is statutorily prohibited.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Change of User - Section 13(1)(a) - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(a) - The dispute pertained to whether tenant changed user of residential premises to commercial use. The tenant agreed in writing to use the premises for residential purpose only as per endorsement on Exhibit-18. From September 1981, he started using it for manufacturing hardboard boxes without landlord's permission. Held that change of user was established as the tenancy was exclusively residential, and the tenant's subsequent commercial use constituted breach of Section 13(1)(a). (Paras 2, 3, 7, 8) B) Rent Control - Non-occupation - Section 13(1)(k) - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(k) - The landlord also claimed eviction on the ground that the tenant had not occupied the premises for residential purpose for more than six months without reasonable cause. The tenant had converted the premises to a business of making boxes, thus ceasing to occupy for the purpose it was let. The court upheld the finding that the premises were not used for residential purpose for the required period, satisfying the ground under Section 13(1)(k). (Paras 1, 8) C) Rent Control - Prohibition on Change of User - Section 25 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 25 - The landlord initially granted permission to install machinery but later withdrew it. The tenant argued that this amounted to waiver. However, the court held that Section 25 prohibits a landlord from allowing residential premises to be used for non-residential purpose, so the permission was void ab initio. There can be no waiver or acquiescence when the act is prohibited by law. (Paras 12, 13) D) Evidence - Comparison of Signatures by Court - Section 73 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 73 - The tenant disputed his signature on the rent receipt (Exhibit-18). The lower courts compared the disputed signature with admitted signatures and concluded it was the tenant's. The High Court held that Section 73 of the Evidence Act empowers the court to compare signatures without the aid of an expert, and such comparison is legally permissible. The finding was thus upheld. (Paras 7(d), 14, 15) E) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - The tenant invoked Article 227 to challenge concurrent findings of fact. The High Court observed that under Article 227, it will not interfere with such findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence, the findings were not liable to interference. (Paras 1, 5, 13) F) Rent Control - Composite Tenancy - No specific section - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant contended that the tenancy was for composite purposes because the earlier shop was used for both residential and non-residential purposes and adjacent shops were so used. The court rejected this as there was no positive evidence; the written agreement for exchange specifically stated residential use. Mere entries in municipal registers or use by neighbors does not establish composite tenancy. (Paras 2, 10, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower courts' concurrent findings on change of user and non-occupation were perverse and liable to be interfered with under Article 227 of Constitution; Whether the tenancy was for residential purpose only or composite purpose; Whether the landlord's initial permission and subsequent withdrawal constituted waiver/acquiescence; Whether the court could compare signatures without expert evidence under Section 73 of Evidence Act
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The eviction decree passed by the lower courts is upheld. The petitioner-tenant's challenge to concurrent findings under Article 227 fails.
Law Points
- Change of user under Section 13(1)(a) of Bombay Rent Act requires proof that premises let for residence were used for commercial purposes without consent
- Non-occupation under Section 13(1)(k) requires proof of non-use for more than six months
- Section 25 prohibits landlord from allowing change of user of residential premises
- Waiver or acquiescence cannot be pleaded when act is prohibited by law
- Court has power under Section 73 of Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatures
- High Court under Article 227 does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse
- Endorsement on rent receipt is admissible evidence of purpose of letting
