Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original defendant 1, was a tenant of a shop premises owned by the plaintiff landlady. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on grounds of change of user, permanent construction, sub-letting, and non-user under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial court dismissed the suit on 29/7/1994. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court in Civil Appeal No.463 of 1994, which was allowed on 28/11/1997, decreeing eviction. The defendant 1 challenged this in the High Court by way of Writ Petition No.988 of 1998. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the defendant 1 had changed the user of the premises from residential to business by allowing defendant 2 to run a business, had sub-let the premises to defendants 2 and 3, had made permanent constructions without consent, and had not used the premises for a continuous period. The court held that the lower appellate court's findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law. The writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Change of User - Section 13(1)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant using residential premises for business of co-owner amounts to change of user - The plaintiff landlady alleged that defendant 1 changed user of the suit premises from residential to business by allowing defendant 2 to run a business therein. The court held that the tenant's act of permitting co-owner to use premises for business constitutes change of user, and the appellate court correctly reversed the trial court's finding. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Sub-letting - Section 13(1)(e) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant sub-letting premises to third parties without landlord's consent - The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 sub-let the premises to defendants 2 and 3. The court held that the evidence showed defendants 2 and 3 were in exclusive possession and carrying on business, establishing sub-letting. The appellate court's finding of sub-letting was upheld. (Paras 11-15) C) Rent Control - Permanent Construction - Section 13(1)(c) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant making permanent alterations without landlord's consent - The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 made permanent constructions in the suit premises. The court held that the evidence of construction of a mezzanine floor and other alterations amounted to permanent construction, and the appellate court's finding was correct. (Paras 16-20) D) Rent Control - Non-user - Section 13(1)(k) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant not using premises for continuous period - The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 did not use the premises for a continuous period of six months. The court held that the tenant's non-user was established as he was not residing in the premises and had sub-let it. The appellate court's decree on this ground was upheld. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit and decreeing eviction on grounds of change of user, sub-letting, permanent construction, and non-user under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the lower appellate court's decree of eviction.
Law Points
- Change of user
- Sub-letting
- Permanent construction
- Non-user
- Eviction of tenant
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Sections 13(1)(a)
- 13(1)(e)
- 13(1)(c)
- 13(1)(k)
