Ravi Chand Mangla v. Dimpal Solania & Ors.
Background
An elderly landlord (a doctor who wished to use the site for a charitable hospital) sought to evict his tenants from premises let out since 1957, alleging arrears of rent, sub-letting, damage to the property, nuisance and a change in the use of the premises from a saw mill to a grill-manufacturing unit. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, and this was upheld on appeal by the Appellate Authority and in revision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court, which repeatedly tried but failed to persuade the parties to settle, since the tenants feared losing their livelihood.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected the landlord's argument on arrears of rent because the dues for the relevant period had already been paid and deposited before the Rent Controller, and this finding had not even been challenged in the earlier appeal. On the central "change of user" argument, the Court examined the rent agreement and found no clause restricting the tenants to running only a saw mill, the agreement allowed them to carry on any business, so switching to manufacturing grills did not amount to an impermissible change of user. Agreeing with the concurrent findings of all three lower forums, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A tenant cannot be evicted for "change of user" simply because the business conducted on rented premises has changed, unless the lease itself specifically restricts the tenant to one particular use: courts will look at the actual wording of the rent agreement, not just what the premises were originally used for.