GURDIAL BATRA versus RAJ KUMAR JAIN

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 18-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
t-· • 
GURDIAL BATRA 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR JAIN 
JULY 18, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: Section 
13 (2) (ii) (b). Eviction-Premises let out for cycle and rickshaw repair-
Business of selling televisions also carried on temporarily side by side-
Whether change of user. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 108(0) Change of user of 
premises-Prejudice to the interest of landlord-Whether necessary. 
The appellant had taken the premises on rent from the respondent 
landlord for running a cycle and rickshaw repairing shop. In the rent 
note there was no stipulation that the appellant would not do any busi-
ness in the shop except the cycle or rickshaw repairs. Along with the 
repair business the appellant temporarily carried on sale of televisions 
also in the premises. The landlord filed an application for eviction 
under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 
Act, 1949 alleging that the tenant had put the premises to different use. 
The Rent Controller rejected the application by holding that the 
temporary sale of televisions did not constitute user for a purpose other 
than that for which the premises was leased. On an appeal filed by the 
lljndlord the appellate authority granted eviction by holding that the 
statutory condition was satisfied. The appeal filed by the tenant against 
the decision of the appellate authority was dismissed by the High Court. 
Hence this appeal by the tenant. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of eviction, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: Letting of a premises can broadly be for residential or 
'--.( 
commercial purpose. The restriction which is statutorily provided in 
' 
section I3(2)(ii)(b) of the Act is obviously one to protect the interests of 
the landlord and is intended to restrict the use of landlord's premises 
taken l>y the tenant under lease. It is akin to the provision contained in 
sect!on IOS(o) of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with the obliga-
H 
423 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A tions of a lessee. A house let for residential purpose would not be avail-
able for being used as a shop even without structural alteration. The 
concept of injury to the premises which forms the foundation of clause 
(o) is the main basis for providing clause (b) in section 13(2)(ii) of the 
Act as a ground for the tenant's eviction. [426H, 427A-B] 
B 
The landlord parts with possession of the premises by giving a 
lease of the property to the tenant for a consideration. Ordinarily, as 
long as tbe interest of the landlord is not prejudiced, a small change iii 
the user would not be actionable. In the instant case, the premises was 
let out for running of a repair shop. Along with the repair business, 
sale of televisions was temporarily carried on. This did not constitute a 
C 
change of user within the meaning of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act so 
as to give a cause of action to the landlord to seek eviction of the 
tenant. [427E, F] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, [1988] 2 S.C.C. 474, applied. 
Des Rajv. Sham Lal, A.I.R. 1980 P & H 229, held inapplicable. 
Moti Ram v. State of Mahdya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1594; 
Maharaj Krishan Kesar v. Milkha Singh, Civil Appeal No. 1086of1964 
decided on November IO, 1965 (S.C.); Dupport Steel Ltd. v. Sirs, 
[1980] 1 All. E.R. 529; U.P. Naing v. Burma Oil Co., A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 
108; Raghavan Pillai v. Sainaba Beevi, [1977] Kerala L.T. 417 and 
Dattatraya v. Guiab Rao, [19781 Maharashtra L.J. 545, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2873 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.1987 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 2209 of 1979. 
Harbans Lal, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta and Aman Vachher for 
the Appellant. 
Rajinder Sachhar, K.C. Dua and Ms. Manju Chopra for the 
Respondent. 
N.S. Das Behl, (Not present) 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
• 
GURDIAL BATRA v. R.K. JAIN [MISRA, J.] 
425 
'1" 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This is a tenant's appeal by special 
A 
leave challenging his eviction from a business premises located at 
Jallandhar. 
Under a rent note (Exh. A-1), the appellant had taken the pre-
mises on rent from the respondent-landlord. The use to which the 
premises was intended to be put was running of a cycle and rickshaw 
B 
repairing shop. As far as relevant, on the allegation that the tenant had 
put the premises to different use, an application for his evict
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.