BISHAMBER DASS KOHLI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus SMT. SATYA BHALLA

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 171 · Decided: 12-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BISHAMBER DASS KOHLI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
SMT. SA TY A BHALI.A 
JANUARY 12, 1993 
[J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND 
N. VENKA TACHALA, JJ.] 
East Punjab _Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1940-Section 13(2)(ii) 
(b }-Eviction on the ground of change of user-JVhether proper. 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 194()-Sections 2(g), 2(h}-
''Residential building", "Scheduled building"-Cons"!lction. 
A 
B 
c 
The suit premises was let out by the appellant landlord to the 
respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. SSO solely for residential purpose. In D 
a part of the premises, the respondent's husband, a lawyer established his 
office and started using the same for that purpose. 
The appellant-landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller 
seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant. 
The Rent Controller made an order of eviction of the respondent-
tenant on the ground of change of user under section 13(2) (ii) (b), of the 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1940. 
The tenant's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, 
E 
against which a revision to the High Court was preferred. 
F 
The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision and set 
aside the eviction order, holding that the building let out as a 're5idendal 
.building' became a 'Scheduled building' by use of a part thereof as lawyer's 
office by the tenant's husband; and therefore, the ground of eviction was G 
not available. 
Hence this appeal by the landlord by special leave, coutendin& that 
the ground of change of user contained in section 13(2) (ii) (b) was dearly 
made out from the · facts and the High Court .erred in setting aside the 
order or eviction. 
.H 
171 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(19'J3] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
11ae respondent-tenant submitted that the landlord waived the 
ground or change or user by acquiescence to use or a part or the ·premises 
as lawyer's office; that the ground in section 13(2)(ii)(b) was not available -
unless the change or user was of substantia~ if not the entire building and, 
therefore, mere use of a small part of the residential building as lawyer's 
B omce does not constitute such change. 
Allowing-the appeal of the landlord, this court, 
HELD : 1.01. Use of the building for a purpose other than that for 
which it was leased, without the written consent of the landlord is a 
C ground or eviction. The object clearly is that the parties must remain 
bound by the terms on which the building is let out, including the condi· 
tion relating to its use for the purpose for which it was leased. In other 
words, breach or the covenant regarding the kind of user of the building 
D 
· let out is the ground of eViction contained in section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. [177 A-BJ 
1.02. If the change In user of the building is of the kind that it makes 
the residential building let out for residential purpose alone change its 
character and become a 'scheduled building' as defined in section 2(b) of 
the Act without the written consent of the landlord, the ground of eviction 
E 
under section 13(2) (ii) (b) is made out. [177C] 
F 
1.03. This test ls fully !!atisfied in the present case and the order of 
eviction was made by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate 
authority on this basis. The High Court misconstrued the provisions to 
take the contrary view. [1770) 
Telu Ram v. Om Par/cash Garg 1971 RCJ 1, approved. 
Sant Ram 'v.Rajindef Lal and Ors., 1978 (2) RCR 601; Dr. Sewa Singh 
v. Smt. Ravinder Kaur and another, [1971] l SCC 981, distinguished. 
G 
2.01. Even though a 'scheduled building; continues to be a ralden· 
tial bulldin1 as defined in section 2(g), a residential building of which nu 
a part is used for a scheduled pu~ose, becomes and ls called a 'scheduled 
building' when user of the bulldi.,, is signiftcant or the criterion. [176F) 
~ 
' 
2.02 Where user or a bu~ding Is of slgnlftcance, a distinctloa Is made la 
H the Act between a residential bUilding which is not a scheduled bulldlJll and 
BISHAMllER KOHLI v. SMT. SATYA BHALLA [VERMA, J.] 
173 
that which Is a scheduled building. This is so In section 4 of the Act dealing ' A 
with determination of fair rent wherein fixation of rent is made on the basis 
of user and for that purpose a 'scheduled building' is treated dlfTerentlyfrom 
a residential building which is not a scheduled building. [176G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5434 of 
~ 
B 
_____,. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1987 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.