1994 JTR(SC) 239
1995 Supp4 SCC 648
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K.Mukherjee : S.Mohan
Ram Gopal
Versus
Jainarain
Case No. : 4076 of 1986
Date of Decision : 2/16/94
Installation of manufacturing machinery in premises leased for a shop constitutes a 'change of user' justifying eviction. Furthermore, the subsequent purchase of a partial share in the demised premises does not extinguish the tenant's liability to be evicted.
Act
Referred
:HARYANA URBAN CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT
: S.13(2)(d)
(A) Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act - Section 13(2)(d) - Demised premises for running a shop - Installation of flour mill and oil press - Change of user - Installation of such machinery amounts to manufacture, thereby altering the user of the premises from a shop to a manufacturing unit, making the tenant liable for eviction. (Para 1)
(B) Recovery of possession - Purchase of partial share of demised premises - Subsequent purchase of a share in the property does not obliterate the liability of the tenant to be evicted. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The premises were leased for the purpose of running a shop. The tenant subsequently installed an Atta Chakki and Oil Kohlu. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of change of user. The tenant contended that the activity remained business and further claimed that the purchase of a one-fourth share of the premises precluded recovery of possession.
Findings of Court:
The installation of machinery for the purpose of running a flour mill constitutes manufacture and thus results in a change of user. The subsequent purchase of a partial share of the premises does not remove the liability for eviction.
Issues: Whether the installation of an Atta Chakki and Oil Kohlu in premises demised for a shop constitutes a change of user under Section 13(2)(d) of the relevant Rent Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the installation of machinery for manufacturing purposes alters the user of the premises from a commercial shop to a manufacturing unit, which justifies eviction.
Result: Civil appeal dismissed.
(B) Recovery of possession - Purchase of partial share of demised premises - Subsequent purchase of a share in the property does not obliterate the liability of the tenant to be evicted. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The premises were leased for the purpose of running a shop. The tenant subsequently installed an Atta Chakki and Oil Kohlu. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of change of user. The tenant contended that the activity remained business and further claimed that the purchase of a one-fourth share of the premises precluded recovery of possession.
Findings of Court:
The installation of machinery for the purpose of running a flour mill constitutes manufacture and thus results in a change of user. The subsequent purchase of a partial share of the premises does not remove the liability for eviction.
Issues: Whether the installation of an Atta Chakki and Oil Kohlu in premises demised for a shop constitutes a change of user under Section 13(2)(d) of the relevant Rent Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the installation of machinery for manufacturing purposes alters the user of the premises from a commercial shop to a manufacturing unit, which justifies eviction.
Result: Civil appeal dismissed.
(1) THE short question that arises for our consideration in this case is where the property was demised for running a shop, if the tenant were to instal an Atta Chakki and Oil Kohlu, whether he is liable to be evicted under Section 13(2(d) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. We are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the ruling of this court that installation of such machinery would amount to manufacture, it is not very difficult to hold that there is change of user. Further it is argued by Mr Nesargi, learned counsel for the appellant that there is no change in the user since it is still business. We are unable to agree. It is not the business as such but it is running of a flour mill which altered the user.
(2) THE last submission made by the learned counsel is that he has come to purchase l/4th share of the demised premises though it is a subsequent event, this court can take note of the same; therefore it is not possible for the landlord to recover possession as on today. We do not think we should go into this. Suffice it to say that by reasons of the purchase of l/4th share of the portion the liability to be evicted is not in any way obliterated.
(3) CIVIL is dismissed. No costs.