BHARAT LAL BARANWAL versus VIRENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 29-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BHARAT LAL BARANWAL 
A 
v. 
VIRENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL 
JANUARY 29, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., AND ASHOK BHAN, J.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation cf Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972-Section 20(2J(d)(as substituted by U.P. Act No.28of1976)-Change of C 
user of tenanted premises froni business to manufacturing activity without 
wril!en consent of landlord-Eviction under the ground-Held, the provision 
required written consent for change of user-Hence, tenant liable to be evicted 
as the change from business to manufacturing amounted to change of user 
and the san1e was not in compliance with the provision. 
D 
Father of the appeHant-landlord let out the suit premises to tenant-
respondent for business purpose of selling of copies and books. After 
sometime, the tenant instaHed a printing machine and started printing 
work without obtaining the written consent of the appeHant. AppeHant 
filed a suit for eviction u/s 20(2) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of E 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Trial Court dismissed the suit 
holding that there was po change of user of the tenanted premises. 
Revisional Court held that tenant was liable to be evicted since he had 
changed the use of the premises. In the writ petition High Court denied 
the eviction holding that the tenant had not changed the use of the 
premises. Hence the present appeal. 
AHowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: I. If the dominant purpose for which a building is let out is 
maintained, a tenant may not become liable to be evicted. But if the G 
building is let out for residential or business purposes and the tenant starts 
manufacturing activity or vice versa, then it would amount to change of 
user subject to the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (663-B, C( 
2. In the present case, the premises were let out to the respondent H 
659 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003l I S.C.R. 
A for business purposes. Tenant started manufacturing activity in the suit 
premises witho~t obtaining written consent of the landlord. This would 
be a change of use of the premises for a purpose other than the purposes 
for which it was let out and not merely an act inconsistent with the purpose 
for which the tenant was admitted to the tenancy of the building. Written 
B consent of the landlord was required for change of user of the building 
for a purpose other than it was let out prior to as well as after the 
amendment of clause (d) of Section 20(2) of the Act. The fact, for what 
purpose the premises was let out and whether the tenant has changed the 
user of the premises is jurisdictional fact and it was open to the revisional · 
courtto go into the said questions. (664-H; 665-A-CI 
c 
3. As the tenant has changed the user of the building from business 
to manufacturing without the written consent of the landlord before and 
after the Amendment of the Act, he became liable to be evicted under 
>-
Section 20(2)(d) of the Act. (665-D, El 
D 
Mohan Lal v. hi Bhagwan, (19881 2 SCC 474 and Raj Kumar Jain 
(19891 3 sec 441, referred to .. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 630-32 of 
2003. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.99, 23.10.2000 and 26.2.2001 
F 
G 
of the High Court of Allahabad in WP. 3281/99. CMRA 84921/99and 93771.' 
2000. 
Pramod Swarup, S .. N. Singh, V.K. Singh and T.N. Singh for the 
Appellants. 
Hardev Singh, S.S. Nehra and Dr. J.B. Gaur for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAN, J. Leave granted. 
On the submissions made before us the only point required to be 
determined in these appeals is: as to whether the tenant-respondent (hereinafter 
referred to as "the respondent") having started using the premises in dispute 
for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out to him without 
the written consent of the appellant-landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the 
H appellant") is liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Section 20 
• 
B.L. BARANWAL v. V.K. AGARWAL [ASHOK BHAN, J.] 
661 
(2)(d) of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) A 
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ? 
The suit premises consisting of three rooms were admittedly let out for 
business purpose of selling of copies and books in the year 1970 by the father 
of the appellant to the respondent-tenant. In the year 1976, the respondent 
started m~nufacturing copies, registers sweet-meat bo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.