- (1.) The question raised in this appeal is the interpretation of S. 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. The question is whether in terms of the rent agreement between the appellant (tenant) and the respondent (landlord), if the tenant uses the shop for a different purpose than the one specified therein will he be liable for eviction
(2.) The short facts are, a rent agreement was entered into between respondent No. 1 and one Mr. T. S. Arulrayar (the grandfather of the appellant) under which the disputed shop was rented out. The relevant portion of the rent agreement which requires our consideration is reproduced below :- "......shall be used by the tenant only for carrying on his own business dealing in radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture and for non-residential purposes and the tenant shall not carry on any other business than the above said business." (Emphasis supplied) On 12th April, 1979 a legal notice was sent by the landlady to the said T.S. Arulrayar terminating his tenancy on two grounds, the wilful default in payment of rent and using the shop for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. This was followed by filing of petition before the rent controller in which it was stated that the tenant is also doing the business of provisions such as chi-llies, dals and other condiments etc., which is other than the one for which he took the accommodation on rent. The tenant denied it and asserted, if the rent-deed is read as a whole it cannot be said that it was for any specified purpose but was given broadly for doing business but was not for residential purpose. Thus, it cannot be termed as a different user. The rent controller finally decreed the suit by holding that tenant is also carrying on the business of provisions, which is other than the one mentioned in the rent deed which would be a different user, hence ordered for his eviction. Thereafter the said T.S. Arulrayar filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which also confirmed the aforesaid judgment. Next civil revision was filed before the High Court. The High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority, relying on M.K.P. Chettiar v. A. P. Pillai (1970) 2 SCC 290, for recording, whether the tenant was using substantial portion of the disputed shop for a different user. After remand the Appellate Authority once again decreed the eviction suit recording substantial portion being put to different user. The appellant's grievance is that the said authority did not record any finding as to the area actually used by him for a different purpose. The inference of a different use of substantial portion was only drawn since appellant could not produce the accounts books relating to the grocery business. The challenge was also that the said Authority wrongly placed burden of proof on the tenant instead on the landlord, hence filed the revision before the High Court. During pendency of the same, Mr. T. S. Arulrayar died and the present appellant and respondent No. 2 were brought as his legal representatives. The High Court also confirmed the findings recorded by he Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by this the present appeal is filed.
(3.) The thrust of submission by learned senior Counsel for the appellant is that the shop was given on tenancy for doing business and even if the appellant changes his business or undertook another business from dealings in radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture to the grocery business, would still be a business and such a change would not affect his right to use it as such. Broadly, tenancies are either for residential or commercial use. Since the change of business does not change its use from commercial it would not constitute this to be a ground for his eviction. To substantiate this, he made reliance on S. 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, which is quoted hereunder :- "108. Rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (o) the lessee may use the property and its products (if any) as a person of ordinary prudence would use them if they were his own; but he must not use, or permit another to use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or fell or sell timber, pull down or damage buildings belonging to the lessor, or work mines or quarries not open when the lease was granted, or commit any other act which is destructive or permanently injurious there to;" (Emphasis supplied);