M ARUL JOTHI Vs. LAJJA BAL

JUDGEMENT

(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 :-

(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 :-