M/S. ATUL CASTINGS LTD. versus BAWA GURVACHAN SINGH

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 20-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. ATUL CASTINGS LTD. 
v 
BAWA GURVACHAN SINGH 
APRIL 20, 2001 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATll.-, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction: 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act , 1949-Section 2(d), 2(g), 
C 2(h), 13(2) (ii) (b)-Eviction petition-Use of premises for purpose other 
than residence-Tenant using a room in a residential building for disposal 
of some files at home pertaining to his office and for the study of family 
members-Held, by such use the building did not cease to be a residential 
and the pwpose & character of the use of the building a!so did not change-
D Use of a Room in a residential building for personal purpose to be 
distinguished ji-0111 use of such a room for business, industry or other 
commercial activity or as .a regular public or professional office. 
Evidence: 
E 
Tenant stating in written statement that he has kept office table and 
office equipment in one room where he brings office work for its disposal-
Held, it cannot be said that tenant admitted the case as to change of user 
of the building-Rent Cohtroller and Appellate Authority expecting the 
tenant to lead negative evidence to prove that part of the building was not 
being used as office-Such approach opposed to settled principal of law in 
F regard to discharge of burden ofproof-A1anifest _error committed in ordering 
eviction in absence of evidence supporting the ground of change of user of 
the building-Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
G 
Interpretation of Statutes-Held, must be pwposive and not unduly 
restrictive or narrow. 
Respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of a11pellant-tcnant from 
the premises under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent 
Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and. 
using a part of the premises as office contrary to the 1mrpose stated in the 
lease-agreement. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, 
H 
IM 
f 
... 
ATUL CASTINGS LTD. v. B.G. SINGH 
125 
res1>ondings-Iandlord did not .press the eviction 1>etition on ground of A 
non-payment of arrears of rent. Rent Controller ordered eviction of 
appellant-tenant which was confirmed by Appellate Authority in a1>peal and 
subsequently by High court in revision. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the a1>1>ellant-tenant, it was contended that the order of 
eviction l>assed against him was patently un~ustainable both on facts as well B 
as in law; that merely because in one of the rooms, certain office tiles brought 
home were disposed of and where·even the children and members of the 
family used that room for study, did not change the character of the premises 
from residential to non-residential; that the interpretation placed on Section 
13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 by the C 
authorities and the high Court was too narrow and restricted, running 
contrary to the very object and pm1>ose of the provision . 
Allowing the a1>peal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is no specific Clause in the lease agreement 1>rohibiting 
the tenant use of even a room in the building for dis1>0sal of some files at D 
home pertaining to his office and for the study of family members. The 
respondent, has failed to establish the change of user of the building by 
necessary pleading and evidence. So long as in a residential building, there 
is no regular commercial activity 'r carrying on of business and regular 
office with interaction of the p~blic and customers, etc. it is not possible to E 
say that use of one room for doing home work per study itself will change 
the user of the building and that t~e classification and character of the 
building is changed. But it continues to remain residential building, so also 
its purpose remains as residential. Use of a room in a residential building 
for personal purpose should be distinguished from use of such a room for 
business, industry or other commercial activity or as a regular public or F 
1>rofessional office. (132-F; 133-A-B] 
Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain, (1989) 9 3 SCC 441, relied on. 
I 
Bishamber Dass Kohli (dead) by LRs. v. Satya Bhalla (Smt.), (1993) 1 
SCC 566 and M Arul Jothi & v. Lajja Bal, (deceased) and Anr., (2000)3 G 
sec 723, held inapplicable. 
Dupport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs, (1080) 1 All ER 529, referred to. 
2. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority expected the 
appellant to lead negative evidence to prove that part of the building was not H 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.