MOHAN LAL versus JAI BHAGWAN

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 23-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHAN LAL 
v. 
JAI BHAGWAN 
MARCH 23, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANA1HAN, JJ.] 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 Section 
13(2)(ii)(b)-Tenant-Eviction of-Use of building for purpose other 
than for which leased. 
· 
Landlord-Renting out shop-Tenant-To run business of Eng-
lish Liquor Vend-Do sale of liquor-Liquor licence not renewed-
Tenant doing business of general merchandise-Whether change in 
user. 
Statutory Interpretation: Statutes-Words and expressions-
A 
B 
c 
Meaning must be found in ·the felt necessities of the time. 
D 
The appeUant-tenant took on rent the suit premises from the 
respondent-landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.120 and executed a rent 
note in bis favour on 19th April, 1975. Clause 4 of the rent note pro-
vided that the tenant was to run the 'business of English Liquor Vend, 
and do sale of liquor in the shop.' 
The respondent filed a petition for eviction under section 13 of the 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 against the 
appellant on the ground of arrears of rent from 1st April, 1979 to 3 Ist 
August, 1979 and change of user from liquor vend business to that of 
general merchandise. 
The appellant tendered the entire arrears of rent at the first date 
of hearing, and contested the eviction petition by filing a written state-
ment contending that after March, 1979 the licence of liquor-vend in_ his 
favour was not renewed, and he had to dtscontinue that business at the 
suit premises, and had to start the business of general merchandise. It 
was, further, contended that the purpose of user still . remained com-
mercial and that there was no clause in the· rent note prohibiting the 
appellant to change to any other business. . 
The Rent Controller held that the appeUant had changed the user 
E 
F 
G 
of the shop iii dispute and that be was liable for eviction under the Act. 
H 
345 
A 
B 
c 
D 
t. 
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.C.R. 
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The High Court 
also dismissed the Civil Revision and upheld the order of eviction. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The business purposes must be adjudged in the light of 
the purposes of the Rent Act in question which is to control the eviction 
of tenants therefrom. [349C] 
2. In the expanding concept of business now-a-days and the 
growing concept of departmental stores, it cannot be said that there was 
any change of user in the instant case, when the tenant converted the 
use of the building from liquor vend business to that of general 
merchandise. The building was rented for the purpose of carrying on a 
busin!!SS. It was used for another business which would not in any way 
impair the utility or damage to the building, and the business could be 
conveniently carried on in the said preinises. No nuisance was also 
created. The case would, therefore, not attract the mischief of s. 
13(2)(ii)(b). [3490, 350E] 
3. So far as the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held in the 
Full Bench decision in Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal, (1984 Punjab Law 
Reporter 1) that allied business would not amount to change of user but 
for a business which is not allied for the business for which it was let 
}-· 
E 
out would amount to change of user come within the mischief of clause 
F 
(b) of section 13(2)(ii) of the Act, the same must be .read with reserva· 
lion. [348H, 349A] 
4. When Parliament legislates to remedy a defect or a lacuna in 
the existing law, and the judiciary interprets them, it has to be borne in 
mind that the meaning of an expression must be found in the felt neces· 
sities of time. [349G-H, 350C·DI 
Duport Steels Ltd. & others v. Sirs and others, [1980) 1 AII.E.R. 
529 at 541, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLA1E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 50 of 
1988. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.87 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 2836 of 1982. 
H 
Dr. Meera Aggarwal for the Petitioner. 
MOHAN LAL v. JAi BHAGWAN IMUKHARJI, J.] 
347 
A.B. Rohtagi, Mukul Rohtagi, Atul Tewari and Ms. Bina 
A 
Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is 
directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and 
B 
Haryana dated 14th August, 1987. The appellant took on rent the 
premises in dispute from the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.120 
and executed a rent note in his favour on 19th April, 1975. Clause 4 of 
the said rent note proVided, inter

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