MOTIRAM DAYARAM DEAD Vs. CHIMANLALATMARAM DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's appeal. The appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant, inter alia, on the ground that he committed breach of the terms of tenancy so much so that the ground floor of the premises let out for residential purposes, was being used for running power looms, weaving machines, etc. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court. The High court in its revisional jurisdiction upset the findings of the two courts below on the short ground that it was not shown that the change of user had caused any damage to the property. This appeal by the landlord is against the judgment of the High court.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 13 (l) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and clause (o) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which are relevant, are as under:

(3.) It is the admitted case that the ground floor of the premises in dispute is not being used for the purpose for which it was let out to the tenant. It is not disputed that the premises was taken on rent by the tenant for residential purposes, but later on he converted it for commercial purpose. The tenant has on the face of it violated the provisions of Section 108 (0 of the Transfer of Property Act, which specifically says "but he must not use, or permit another use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased". The landlord is, therefore, entitled to recover the possession from the tenant on the plain language of Section 108 (0 read with Section 13 (l) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. Even otherwise we are not impressed by the argument that no damage was caused to the premises. Converting a residential premises into a sort of mini-textile factory is surely going to affect the residential utility of the premises. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High court. We set aside the High court judgment and restore that of the trial court as upheld by the appellate court and direct the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute.