M. ARUL JOTHI AND ANR. versus LAJJA BAL (DECEASED) AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 29-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M. ARUL JOTHI AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
LAJJA BAL (DECEASED) AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 29, 2000 
[A.P. MiSRA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: 10(2)(ii)(b). 
Change of user-Rented premises-Use of-Other than that.for which it 
C 
was leased-Rent agreement stipulated the tenant not to use the premises for 
a business other than the one specified in the agreement-However, tenant used 
a substantial portion of the premises for a business other than the one speci-
fied-Landlord's suit for eviction decreed on the ground of change of user-
Correctness of-Held : Prohibition clause in the rent deed must be given effect 
D 
to-Otherwise any specific term of an agreement will be redundant-Conten-
tion that in view of the similarity of the language in S.108( o) of the T.P. Act a'nd 
S.10(2)(ii)(b) ofthe TN. Act it should be interpreted broadly to mean that only 
use of the buildings that damages it or diminishes its value or converts it into 
a residence should be deemed as change of user; rejected. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : 
Section 108(0)-Scope and ambit of-Held: Parties are free to enter 
into contract to the contrary mentioned in the Section. 
Words and Phrases : 
"In the absence of a contract or local usage"-Meaning of-In the 
context of S.108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
E 
F 
Appellant's grandfather and respondent No. 1 entered into a rent 
agreement under which a shop was rented out The rent agreement pro-
G 
vided that the shop was to be used only for carrying on the business of 
dealing in radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture and that no other 
business other than the above should be carried on. 
The landlord sent a legal notice to the appellant's grandfather termi-
·_. nating his tenancy on two grounds; the wilful default in payment of rent 
H 
1 
A 
B 
c 
D 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 2 S.C.R. 
and using the shop for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. · 
Thereafter, the landlord filed an ·eviction petition under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) 
of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the 
Rent Controller stating that the appellant's grandfather carried on a 
grocery business which was other than the one for which he took the 
accommodation on rent. 
The Rent Controller decreed the suit by holding that the grocery 
business carried on by the tenant was a different user. The Appellate 
Authority while confirming the aforesaid order also found that a substan-
tial portion of the shop was put to a different user. The High Court 
dismissed the revision. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that though the appel-
lant changed his business yet the change would not affect his rights under 
the lease, which was a commercial one; that the language of Section 108(0) 
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was similar to that of Section 
10(2)(ii)(b) of the T.N. Act and, therefore, the latter had to be interpreted 
in a broader perspective, and that there was no specific finding regarding 
the area of the substantial portion used for the changed business. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the statem~nt of 
E 
the appellant's grandtather clearly gave the exact area in use as a radio 
shop and the area in use as the grocery store. 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In the present case there is a specific prohibition clause in 
the rent deed which states "shall be used by the tenant only for carrying on 
his own business, and the tenant shall not carry on any other business than 
the above said business". By the use of the word 'only' with reference to the 
tenant doing business coupled with the last three lines, namely, "the tenant 
shall not carry on any other business than the above said business", clearly 
spells out the intent of the parties which restricts the user of the tenanted 
premises, only for the business which is stated therein and no other. 
(10-A-C] 
2.1. The appellant's contention that the language of Section 108(0) of 
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil 
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 being similar, inter-
M. ARUL JOTHI v. LAJJA BAL 
3 
pretation should be given in a broader perspective, that is the use of the 
A 
building by the tenant should not be such as to damage it or diminish its 
value and restriction if any could be that if it was given for busines

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