Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.58 seconds)Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan on 23 March, 1988
19. An argument was then raised that as the change of user of the land from factory to residential purposes did not result in any damage to it, such change was not actionable. A string of authorities concerning shops let out for one purpose being used for another were referred to in this behalf. These may be dealt here. Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, (1988-1) 93 P.L. R. 670 (S. C.), was a case where a shop let out for a liquor vend was converted to general merchandise business It was held that as this change of user would not cause any mischief or detriment or impairment of the shop and that one sense could also be called an allied business in expanding concept of departmental stores, there was no change of user in this case which would attract the mischief of Section 13(2) (ii)(b)of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 Similarly, in Subiash Chander v. Baldev Singh, 1990(1) Rent O.R. 417 where a shop let out for the sale of liquor was used for the business of sale of utensils after the liquor licence of the tenant had been cancelled, it was held that there was no change of user as the premises were being used for another commercial purpose involving no inspirment of the value or utility of the business.
Gurdial Batra vs Raj Kumar Jain on 18 July, 1989
20. What is really apt and relevant here are the observation of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain, (1989-2) 96 P.L.R. 313, which concerned a shop let out for repair of cycles and cycle rikshaws. For a while the tenant also sold Television Sets at the shop. It was held that ordinarily, so long as the interests of the landlord are not prejudiced, a small change in the user would not be actionable. It was further observed :
Banke Ram vs Smt. Sarasti Devi on 17 December, 1976
24. What is pertinent to note here is the contention raised in Banke Ram's case (supra), namely; that if some facts required to be pleaded are not averred in the pleadings, but evidence has been Jed by both parties and the Court comes to the conclusion that the tenant has not been taken by surprise by the absence of certain pleadings, the landlord should be entitled to. get the necessary relief, even in the absence of these pleadings. Cited in support being the observations of the.
Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs Sampati Subba Rao on 17 April, 1962
Supreme Court in Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, A. I.R. 1963 S. C. 884, which are reproduced hereunder :-
K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors on 12 February, 1963
29. Additional evidence in an appeal is governed by the principles as set-forth in Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is well-settled that these provisions cannot be construed to provide a second or further opportunity, as it were, to a party to add to evidence already on record or to fill up gaps in its case merely for the asking. The Court is, no doubt, empowered to admit additional evidence for 'any other substantial cause,' but as held in K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and Ors., A.I. R. 1963 S.C. 1526, the requirement of the Court on this account is not ordinarily likely to arise unless some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent on an examination of the evidence already on record - Such is clearly not the case here.
Section 116 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Bhawanji Lakhamhi & Ors vs Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Ors on 14 December, 1971
18. As regards a new tenancy coming into being, during the subsistence of the lease, no such case was ever set up either in the pleadings or before the rent controller and the appellate authority. Bhawanji Lakhamshi and Ors. v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Ors., A. I. R. 1972 S.C. 819, which was sought to be cited in support is clearly inapplicable as a precedent here, as the matter raised and dealt with there partained to Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act concerning a tenant holding over. At any rate, if, as discussed earlier, waiver and acquiescence cannot operate as an estoppel against the landlords, mere acceptance of rent, after the change of user, cannot be construed as creation of a fresh tenancy with such change of user of the land concerned
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
1