THE GOA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus NOOR MOHD. SHEIKH MUSSA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 902 · Decided: 05-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE GOA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 
v. 
NOOR MOHD. SHEIKH MUSSA AND ANR. 
JULY 5, 2004 
B 
·~ 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND ASHOK BHAN, J.) 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 
C 1968-Section 22(2}(b)(ii)-Premises let out to a bank for use as 'office'-
Use of. as 'godown' for storage of records and setting up its office in 
another building-Eviction-Permissibilily of-Held: Shifting of the 
activities from office purpose to godown purpose is a change of~se of 
premises-It is not shifting of the business from one trade to another 
D trade-Also the bank did not obtain necessary permission from the Reserve 
Bank of India to carry on its banking activities at the suit premises-Hence, 
tenant liable to be evicted-Banking Regulation Act, 1949-Section 23. 
E 
Words and Phrases : 
'Office', 'Godown', Warehouse', 'Bank', 'Business', 'Building' and 
for any other purpose '-Meaning of 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was 
whether the use of the premises as a 'godown' for storage of records 
F alone when it is let out for use as 'office', amounts to putting the 
premises to a different use by tenant than the one for which the 
premises were let out and the tenant is liable to be evicted in terms of 
Section 22(2)(b)(ii) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent 
and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. I. When it is specified in the lease deed that the 
premises be used for a particular commercial purpose then the change 
H of use of the premises falling in another category of purpose would 
902 
GOA URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD. v. NOOR SHEIKH MUSSA 903 
amount to change of user of the building falling within the four corners A 
of Section 22(2)(b)(ii) of the Goa, Daman & D'iu Buildings (Lease, Rent 
and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 and the landlord would be entitled to 
seek eviction of the tenant for having changed the use of the suit 
premises for a purpose other than for which it was let out. [911-D-FI 
1.2. When the use of the building is identified in the lease deed 
as an 'office' it would be taken that the parties had used the expression 
'office' in the sense in which the 'office' is understood in common 
parlance or as indicated by its dictionary meaning. Considering that 
B 
the suit premises were let out for office use, mere storage of the books C 
of accounts would not amount to use of premises for office purposes 
especially when the appeliant-tenant has admitted that they have 
started using the building as a godown and have shifted its business 
of banking to another building in the year 1982 and the High Court 
has concluded the same and also that it continued to be so used till the 
date of filing the eviction petition in the year 1992. Therefore, when D 
the building is let out as an 'office' then the same can be used only as 
an office and not as a godown where the goods are stored and the 
shifting of the activities from office purpose to godown purpose is a 
change of use of premises. It is not shifting of the business from one 
trade to another trade. 1911-F-H; 914-D-E] 
E 
Des Raj v. Sham Lal, AIR (1980) P & H. 229, approved. 
Black's Law Dictionary; Webster's Encyclopaedic Unabridged 
Dictionary of the English Language 1996 Edition; Oxford Dictionary; F 
Law Lexicon by Aiyer; Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionmy, Vol. 
I and II, Second Edition and Oxford Dictionary Fourth Edition; Law 
Lexicon of British India 1940 Edition and Stroud's Judicial Dictionary 
Third Edition, referred to. 
1.3. The Branch office has been defined to mean a place at which G 
deposits are received, cheque cashed or monies lent and includes any 
place of business where any other form of business referred to in sub-
section (I) of Section 6 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is transacted. 
A banking company cannot open a new place of business in India 
without obtaining the prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India. H 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A Similarly it cannot change its existing place of business situated in India 
otherwise than within the same city, town or village. In the instant case, 
the appellant had already shifted his branch office for the banking 
activities to another building and it has failed to show that it had the 
necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India to carry on with 
B its banking activities at the suit premises as well. 1913-C-Fl 
CIVIL 

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