Tenanted premises can be used for another purpose than agreed in absence of negative covenant-SC
SEPTEMBER 18, 2018: The petition for eviction filed by the Landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad and in revision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Aggrieved thereby the landlord filed appeal befote the Supreme Court .
Supreme Court held while dismissing the appeal for eviction, in RAVI CHAND MANGLA Versus DIMPAL SOLANIA & ORS. that "The main point urged on behalf of the Appellant is that the premises which was let out for saw mill is now being utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of grills which amount to change of user. Submissions were made before us by both sides on the interpretation of terms of the rent agreement. On a perusal of the agreement, we are convinced that there is no restriction placed on the Respondents-tenant to run business only relating to the saw mill. The tenant was given the liberty to carry on any other business as well. In the absence of any negative covenant the user does not amount to user for the purpose other than for which the premises was leased. A premises taken on rent for ‘sugarcane crushing’ was used for cloth business in which case the landlord’s contention that there was change of user was rejected.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2018: The petition for eviction filed by the Landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad and in revision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Aggrieved thereby the landlord filed appeal befote the Supreme Court .
Supreme Court held while dismissing the appeal for eviction, in RAVI CHAND MANGLA Versus DIMPAL SOLANIA & ORS. that “The main point urged on behalf of the Appellant is that the premises which was let out for saw mill is now being utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of grills which amount to change of user. Submissions were made before us by both sides on the interpretation of terms of the rent agreement. On a perusal of the agreement, we are convinced that there is no restriction placed on the Respondents-tenant to run business only relating to the saw mill. The tenant was given the liberty to carry on any other business as well. In the absence of any negative covenant the user does not amount to user for the purpose other than for which the premises was leased. A premises taken on rent for ‘sugarcane crushing’ was used for cloth business in which case the landlord’s contention that there was change of user was rejected. Read the full judgment
