The Bombay High Court upheld an eviction decree initially passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The eviction was based on the tenants using commercial premises for residential purposes, which violated Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. Despite arguments claiming minor residential use, the Court found dominant residential use of the premises by relatives of the original tenant, warranting eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

1. Parties Involved:

• Petitioners: Harilal Anurup Awadhia (now represented by legal heirs)
• Respondent: Prabhakar Shravan Shinde

2. Nature of Dispute:
The dispute arose when the Respondent, the owner of two shops, filed a suit for eviction of the tenants (Awadhia) for non-payment of rent, unauthorized subletting, and changing the use of the premises from commercial to residential.

3. Trial Court's Decree:
The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Respondent), ordering eviction on the grounds of acts contrary to Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The other grounds, such as willful default and subletting, were dismissed.

4. Appellate Court's Confirmation:
On appeal, the Additional District Judge upheld the Trial Court's eviction decree, focusing on the change of user by tenants, which was deemed a breach under the Transfer of Property Act.

Key Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
   This section restricts the tenant from using the leased property for purposes other than what it was leased for, particularly preventing acts that could damage or permanently injure the property.

2. Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947:
   The landlord can recover possession if the tenant uses the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were leased, as outlined in Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court established that dominant use of commercial premises for residential purposes, as evidenced by the tenants securing ration cards and residential proof at the premises, constitutes a breach of tenancy terms. The Court reaffirmed that such use falls under the prohibited acts outlined in Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. It rejected the argument that minor use for residential purposes is permissible when the primary purpose was commercial.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 108(o)
• Bombay Rent Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(a)

Subjects:

Property Law, Tenancy Law
#Eviction #ChangeOfUse #PropertyLaw #Section108o #TenancyDisputes #BombayRentAct