BEFORE THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
DECIDED ON-: 7TH AUGUST, 1970
BENCH-: JUSTICE HARBANS SINGH, JUSTICE PREM CHAND JAIN
FACTS
This revision petition challenges the decisions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, both of which rejected the landlord's application seeking the eviction of the tenant. The matter was referred to this Bench by a learned Single Judge due to the perceived importance of a legal question involved. The background of the case is as follows: The tenant, respondent, had leased a shop owned by Jatindar Kishore around 1953. In October 1958, at the landlord's request, the tenant executed a rent-note (Exhibit A 1), explicitly stating that the shop would be used primarily for the purpose of a general store. Evidence on record indicates that the tenant engaged in the business of selling books and stationery both before and after executing this rent-note. In 1958, the tenant introduced a printing machine in the rear portion of the shop, securing an electric power connection for its operation.
Subsequently, Jatindar Kishore sold the disputed premises to Telu Ram (the petitioner in this case) through a sale deed dated November 9, 1964. Telu Ram initiated the application for the tenant's eviction, asserting that the tenant had utilized the building for a purpose other than the one specified in the lease. In response, the tenant contended that the installation of the printing press had been done with the consent of the previous landlord, Jatindar Kishore. Moreover, the tenant argued that the printing press, located in a small portion of the leased premises, did not constitute a violation of the lease terms, and therefore, he should not be subject to eviction as per Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The crucial issues before this petition pertain to the tenant's claim of consent for installing the printing press and whether this constitutes a breach under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. The legal dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Act in determining the validity of the landlord's eviction application.
ISSUES
· Whether the installation of the printing press within the demised shop was carried out with the explicit consent of both the previous owner, Jatindar Kishore, and the subsequent landlord of the premises.
·Whether the printing press is confined to only a small portion of the rented premises.
JUDGMENT
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that it is correct that the expression "a part of the building" is not present in sub-clause (b) of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Consequently, a minor alteration in the use of a small section of the building does not automatically subject the tenant to eviction under this sub-clause. However, it is noteworthy that the term 'entire' is not used to modify the word 'building,' as seen in sub-clause (a). Considering the legislative intent behind introducing this clause, which aims to prevent tenants from using the leased premises for a purpose to which the landlord would not have consented at the time of the lease. While a slight modification of a very small part of the premises for a purpose distinct from the original lease may not lead to eviction under clause (iii)(b) of section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, significant use of a substantial portion of the premises for a different purpose trigger the consequences envisioned by the aforementioned clause. A business involving the sale of books does not inherently encompass the printing of books. The sale of books is a commercial activity, whereas printing constitutes an industrial activity. It is improbable that the landlord, when leasing the shop for the sale of books and merchandise, would have agreed to the installation of a printing press powered by electricity on the premises.
If the outcome of using even a small portion of a building results in a change in the category of the building from residential, non-residential, or scheduled, invoking clause (ii)(b) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act becomes applicable. In instances where a significant part of the leased premises is employed for a purpose other than the one for which it was leased, the tenant becomes liable for eviction. Determining whether there has been a substantial conversion of the premises for a purpose different from the original lease is a factual inquiry specific to each case.
コメント