NAND KISHORE versus YASHPAL SINGH

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 1201 · Decided: 21-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

., 
[2009) 10 S.C.R. 1201 
~ 
NANO KISHORE 
A 
v. 
YASHPAL SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2009) 
JULY 21, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - ss. 11, 
13(2)(ii)(b) & 19 - Conversion of residential building into non-
residential building - Premises situated in residential area c 
and in a residential building - Landlord inducted tenant at the 
initial stage in the premises for residential purposes but later 
on converted tenancy for commercial use without permission 
~ 
of Rent Controller - Eviction application - Maintainability of 
~ 
-
Held: Eviction application is to be allowed - Even if D 
residential premises is let out for commercial purpose by 
mutual agreement between landlord and tenant, landlord can 
still seek eviction of tenant. 
,, 
The questions which arose for consideration in this 
E 
appeal are whether the premises which is situated in a 
. .., 
residential area and in a residential building can be used 
for commercial purposes even by consent of the 
appellant-landlord in view of section 11 of East Punjab 
Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the provisions of F 
the Development and Regulation Act; and that if the 
residential premises is let out for commercial purposes, 
by a mutual agreement between the landlord and the 
tenant, ·can the landlord still seek eviction of the tenant 
on the ground that using of such residential premises for 
commercial purposes entails the tenant to be evicted 
G 
from the premises. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
1201 
H 
1202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The landlord cannot per•nit a tenant to 
use the premises which is situated in a residential area 
for commercial purposes as it would be violative of 
Section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 
1949 which is mandatory in nature. If the residential 
B premises is let out for commercial purposes, by a mutual 
agreement between the landlord and the tenant, the 
landlord can still seek eviction of the tenant on the ground 
that using of such residential premises for commercial 
purposes entails the tenant to be evicted from the 
c demised premises. [Paras 6 and 10] (1206-F-G; 1028-A-
B] 
1.2. A reading of the impugned judgment of the High 
Court would clearly show that the judgment of the High 
Court was based only on the ground that the building 
D was let out for commercial purposes from the time of 
induction of the respondent-tenant in the demised 
premises and the respondent had been using the same 
as such since the inception of the tenancy and, 
therefore, the provision of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act 
E could not be attracted because the respondent had not 
used the demised premises for a purpose other than that 
F 
for which it was leased out to him and accordingly, no 
,.. 
order of eviction could be passed against the respondent. 
[Para 17] (1210-H; 1211-A-C] 
1.3. From the admission of the respondent, it is 
evidently clear that the demised premises is situated in 
a residential area and the building in which the demised 
premises is situated is also a residential building and he 
G had also not taken any permission from the Rent 
Controller for carrying on commercial activities. Such 
being the position, the production of the Rent-Note to find 
out the purpose for which the tenancy was created shall 
not be decisive. (Para 24] (1213-G-H; 1214-A-B] 
H 
1.4. It is clear from the admission of the respondent 
.. 
NANO KISHORE v. YASHPAL SINGH 
1203 
himself that the appellant can resume the demised A 
. premises at any time because of carrying on the 
commercial activity and that the demised premises is in 
a residential. area and also in a residential building. In the 
\ 
eviction application as well as in evidence, it was the case 
.of the appellant that in the month of April, 1994, the 
B 
respondent was inducted for residential use and the 
commercial activities were started by him in the month 
of December, 1994 onwards. Thus, the respondent was 
inducted in the demised premises at the initial stage for 
residential use and not for commercial purposes but the c 
respondent converted the tenancy later on from 
residential to commercial use. In view of the findings, the 
respondent clearly violated the provisions of section 
13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. [Paras 25, 26 and 28] [1214-B-C; 
1214-E-F; 1215-B] 
D 
1.5. Looking at the object of the Act and the 
provisions made, and considering the fact that the 

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