HARI RAO versus N. GOVINDACHARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 15-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HARi RAO 
A 
V. 
N. GOVINDACHARI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; Ss. 10(2), 
11(2) and 21/Transfer of Property Act; Section 108(0): 
C 
Premises let out for carrying on trade in leather goods/shoes-User of 
the premises by tenant for different purposes-Eviction petition-Allowed by 
Rent Control/er-Reversed by Appellate Authority-Challenge to-Allowed 
by High Court restoring the order of Rent Controller-On appeal, Held: D 
When lease is granted for carrying on a trade without any covenant prohibiting 
a user different from the one mentioned in the lease deed, the tenant could 
carry on any trade in the premises consistent with the location and nature of 
the premises-Since the premises in question let out for the purpose of trading 
in leather/shoe trade, its user for readymade garments could not be held to 
be a user by the tenant for changed purpose-Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act E 
not attracted-Both the Rent Controller and the High Court did not consider 
the relevant aspects in the context of Statute and acted without jurisdiction in 
passing an order of eviction. 
Fixing of Racks etc. by drilling holes in the walls-Acts of waste-Held: 
Such acts of tenant could not be termed as acts of waste since the landlord F 
could not produce any material in support thereof 
The respondent-landlord leased out the premises in question, a room, 
to the appellant-tenant for the purpose of a shoe trade/trade in leather 
goods, but the tenant used a part of the premises for carrying on trade in G 
readymade garments and in connection thereto, the tenant had also fixed 
name-boards outside the premises and drilled two holes in the walls for 
fixing racks and had also taken an independent three phase electric 
connection. The landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of using 
the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out and 
217 
H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A that these acts of fixing of racks etc. by the tenant amount to commission/ 
causing commission of such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially, 
the value or utility of the building within the meaning of Section 10(2)(iii) 
of the Tamil nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petition was allowed 
by the Rent Controller. The order was reversed by the Appellate authority. 
On appeal, High Court held that the Rent Controller was correct in 
B ordering eviction on the facts established in the case. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Appellant-tenant contended that the premises was let out for the 
purpose of a trade, though, at the relevant time, he was only conducting 
C a trade in shoes; and that there was no violation by him of any terms of 
the letting as there was no change of user by him by using part of the 
premises for carrying on trade in readymade garments. 
Respondent-landlord submitted that he had let out the premises for 
running a shoe-mart and he did not enter into any other agreement 
D permitting the tenant to sell readymade garments in the premises; and 
that the tenant had converted a portion of the shop for selling readymade 
dresses and this amounted to user of the shop by the tenant for a purpose 
other than that for which it was leased. 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. When the lease is granted for the purpose of a trade, in 
the absence of any covenant in the contract between the parties prohibiting 
a user different from the particular one mentioned in the lease deed, the 
tenant would be entitled to carry on any trade in the premises, consistent 
with the location and the nature of the premises. (244-C-D) 
1.2. In a case where the premises let out for a commercial purpose, 
is used by the tenant for a residential purpose, it would be a user for a 
purpose other than that for which it was leased attracting Section 10 (2) 
(ii) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 
G Similarly, if a building had been let out for the purpose of a trade, but a 
tenant uses the premises for the purpose of manufacture or production of 
materials after installing machinery, that would be a user other than the 
one for which the building was let. User of a building let out for a trade 
as a godown may attract the provision. Ultimately, the question would 
depend upon the facts of a particular case, in the context of the terms of 
H the letti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.