Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Bhabhutmal Rikhbaji Sharma And Anr. vs Manubhai Madhavji Patel And Ors. on 24 April, 1979

Smt. Trivedibai Kashinath Gulave And ... vs The Poona Harijan Co-Operative Housing ... on 24 June, 2005

7. The requirement, therefore, is for the landlord to suggest and prove on the record, that the tenant in breach of the basic agreement of tenancy, and and without his permission, changed the use of the said premises. In the present case, there is a ample evidence on the record to show that the petitioner-tenants have changed the use of the premises by using the rear portion of the premises for a residential purpose. The basic agreement is for the non-residential use for a grocery shop. There is no dispute that there is a change of use of the premises in question. The learned counsel Mr. K.Y. Mandlik, appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that if dominant purpose and use of the premises is for the non-residential purpose, then the partial occupation or use of the premises for residential purpose is in no way sufficient reason to grant a decree of eviction. He further contended that the petitioners were using the said premises for non-residential purpose, as well as, for residential purpose since the day of inception of the tenancy i.e. since 1963. There was no specific objection raised by the respondents-landlord at any point of time and, therefore, he relied on the judgment in Babhutmal Rikhbaji v. Manubhai Madhavji [Bom. Rent Cases, 231, (Guj.)], where in it has been held that: "a partial change of user would not constitute the breach of the restrictive covenants and would not entail consequences of eviction".
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document
1