JAGDISH LAL versus PARMANAND

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 27-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAGDISH LAL 
v. 
PARMANAND 
MARCH 27, 2000 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136-Appeal against eviction-
Tenant had given undertaking before High Court that he would vacate 
• 
premises by specific date-Failure of tenant to honour the undertaking-
C 
Held, Does not affect his right to approach the.Supreme Court under Article 
.136-Can even seek interim stay of eviction-However, Supreme Court 
would exercise discretion to grant leave to appeal. 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
D 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973-Section 13-
E 
F 
G 
H 
Eviction-Change of user-Change of business from general merchandise to 
restaurant-Does amount to change in user-However, change of user only 
temporary and tenant reverted back to original business-Hence, no change 
of user-Tenant allowed to stay subject to his paying rent at enhanced rate. 
The premises in question was let out to the tenant-appellant for 
"Maniyan'" business (General Merchant & Readymade and cloth Mer-
chant) in which he set up a restaurant serving tea and cold drinks. The 
Respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban 
(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 fqr eviction of the appellant on 
several grounds, including changing the user of the shop for which it was 
let out. But, during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Rent 
Controller, the appellant had reverted back to his original business. The 
Rent Controller allowed the petition only on the ground.of change of user 
of the shop. Thereafter, the appeal and the subsequent Revision also 
dismissed. Hence this Appeal. 
The appellant had given an undertaking before the High Court in 
terms of the judgment that he would vacate the shop in question by a 
specific date provided he was granted time for that purpose. Therefore, a 
preliminary objection was raised that the present appeal was not maintain-
able as the filing of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the 
Constitution amounts to a breach of the undertaking in the present case. 
526 
JAGDISH LAL v. PARMA NAND 
527 
On the other hand, it was contended for the appellant that the Rent 
Controller, the Appellate Authority and the High Court were wrong in 
ordering the eviction as there was no change of user and the shop was not 
being used for a purpose other than for which it was let out. 
Disposing of the Appeal, the Court 
HELD : Per Saghir Ahmed, J. 
1. Even if the tenant gives an undertaking in the High Court to vacate 
the premises, his right to approach this Court under Article 136 of the 
Constitution is not affected. The tenant would still have a right to approach 
the higher Court and even seek interim relief of stay of eviction despite the 
undertaking given by him to vacate the premises. [530-G-H] 
P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatt~ [1998) 6 SCC 507, relied 
on. 
Thacker Hariram Motiram v. Balkrishan Chatrabhu Thacker & Ors., 
[1989) Supp. 2 SCC 655; Vidhi Shankar v. Heera La~ [1987) Supp. SCC 2000 
and Ramchandra Jai Ram Randive v. Chandanmal Rupchand; [1987] Supp. 
sec 254, referred to. 
Per Wadhwa, J. : 
There is no gain saying that jurisdiction of this Court cannot be 
impinged upon. But then the Court has absolute discretion in the matter to 
grant leave to appeal to it under Article 136 of the Constitution. It cannot 
be said that, this Court in a petition under Article 136 cannot, while 
exercising its discretion, examine the circumstances under which undertak-
ing was given - as to whether the petitioner has to misled the Court or 
duped the other party. [537-C-DJ 
P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatt~ [1998) 6 SCC 507, re-
ferred to. 
R.N. Gosain case, [1992) 4 SCC 683, cited. 
2. Where the new business started by the tenant in the premises let 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
out to him was an allied business or a business, which was ancillary to the 
main business, it would not amount to change of user. It is true where a 
H 
·A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
premises is let out for commercial purposes, carrying on of a new business 
activity therein would not change the nature of the building and it would 
still remain a commercial building. But that is not enough. Having regard 
to the pr«?visions of the Act and the intendment of the legislature in provid-
ing that the tenant would not use the premises for a purpose other than for 
~hich it was let out, the new business should either have some linkage with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.