LAWS(BOM)-1997-6-147

RAZIYA TAYYAB QUETTAWALLA Vs. LAXMIDEVI HIRALAL AGARWAL

Decided On June 10, 1997
Raziya Tayyab Quettawalla Appellant
V/S
Laxmidevi Hiralal Agarwal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgement and order dated 12.9.1996 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge Pune in Civil Appeal No. 897/93. That Appeal was filed by the present petitioner, challenging the judgement and decree dated 11th October, 1993 passed by the IVth Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No. 1726/87. That Civil suit was filed by the present respondents, claiming therein that they are owners of the suit premises being a room admeasuring 14'x 10' feet, forming a part of C.T.S. No. 683, at Taboot Street, Camp Pune - 1. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on two grounds, namely, that though the premises were let out to the tenant for being used as Godown for storing goods, the tenant has after making some changes in the suit premises started using it as a shop and that the tenant has erected permanent structure in the suit premises.

(2.) IT is to be seen here that it was the case of the landlord that the land on which the building is constructed by the landlord, vests in the Cantonment Board, Pune. According to the landlord because the tenant changed the user of the premises, he has to face action from the Board for termination of his tenancy, The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on the record, recorded findings on both the questions in favour of the landlord and decreed the suit. In Appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal. It is these two judgements, which are challenged in the present petition.

(3.) ON the other hand Mrs. Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as it is now an established position that the premises were let out to the tenant for being used as Godown and the tenant has actually used the tenement not as Godown but for running a shop. In view of the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Bright Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. and Co. v. Venkatlal G. Pittie and Ors. 1979 ML.J. 894 the mere act of change of purpose of user though it may not result in any injury to the property or to the interest the landlord amounts to breach of Clause (o) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the submission of Mrs. Agarwal as the effect of change of user by the tenant is no more in dispute then in the lace of the judgment of the Division Bench in Bright Brothers Company's case the decree of eviction passed against the tenant is perfectly valid.