SUBHASH MAHADEO HULE Vs. A K CHAPHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 31.7.1984 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No.238 of 1972. That Appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1982 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court at Bombay in R.A.E. & R.Suit No. 521/4209. That Civil suit was filed by the petitioner, claiming therein that he is landlord of the suit premises and the respondent is a tenant. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the tenant has changed the user of the suit premises from residential to education. The trial court found in favour of the landlord and passed a decree of eviction against the tenant. In the Appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence on the record and reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and held that the tenant has not changed the user of the suit premises. As a result, the Appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioners for decree of eviction against the tenant stood dismissed. In the present petition, therefore, it is the order of the Appellate Court which is challenged.

(2.) IT is the case of the landlord that the suit premises were let out to the respondent for the purpose of residence. However, within 6 months of taking the premises on lease, the tenant started conducting coaching classes for the S.S.C. students in those premises and therefore, according to the landlord there is change of user effected by the tenant. On the other hand it was the case of the tenant that in the beginning the premises were let out to him for residence-cum-coaching class and it is for this purpose, that he has used the suit premises and therefore, there is no change of user. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged before me that under the Building Regulations, the building could be used only for the purpose of residence and if the owner of the building either uses or permits that building to be used for any other purpose, than the residence then it exposes him to prosecution under the local authorities Act and the Building Regulations. It is submitted that therefore, it can not be said that the landlord would let the premises for being used for conducting coaching classes. In my opinion, using the premises for coaching class, which were let out for the purpose of residence may amount to a change of user within the meaning of Bombay Rent Act. But in so for as the Building Regulations are concerned, in my opinion, there will be no change of user if the premises which can be used for residential purpose, are also used for conducting coaching class. Therefore, I do not see that there was any threat of prosecution of the landlord under the building regulation in permitting using of the suit premises for residence and for conducting coaching classes. It is further to be seen here that perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court shows that the Appellate Court has scanned the entire evidence on the record carefully and has reached the conclusion that the premises were not taken on rent by the tenant for the purpose of coaching classes. For that purpose the Appellate Court has taken into consideration following circumstances: