Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.49 seconds)Section 13 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Dharam Chand vs Mathura Dass on 5 October, 1981
17. The counsel for the respondent further relied upon Chand v. Mathura Dass, 1981(2) R.C.R. 486. In this case also, the allegations against the tenant were that he took the shop on rent for bakery business but started residing in a portion of the shop with his family for the satisfactory running of the business and it was held by this Court that the tenant is guilty of change of user if he uses the entire building or major portion thereof for a purpose different from the purpose of letting. Using of a small portion for a purpose different than the purpose of letting, does not amount to change of user. In the case in hand, of course, the tenancy consisted of two rooms besides a kitchen and a court yard. In one of the rooms, handloom has been installed by the tenant as proved on the record. There is no evidence on the record proved by the landlord that this room is exclusively used for weaving purposes. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that 50% of the demised premises had been changed for commercial purposes or that the major chunk of the demised premises has become commercial.
Prem Chand vs District Judge, Dehradun & Anr on 23 November, 1976
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon Prem Chand v. District Judge, Dehradun and Anr., 1977 R.C.R. 471, and submitted that if the dominant purpose of the tenancy has not been changed by the tenant, the ejectment cannot be granted. In the cited case, the tenant had occupied two rooms in the tenancy and opened a tailoring shop in one of the rooms arid the said room was also being utilised as a bed-room. In these circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the tenant is not liable for the change of user. In the present case also, the case set up by the landlord and proved one, is that the tenant has installed a handloom. We all known that handloom does not require any permanent fixture and it can just be placed on the floor. It hardly covers a space of 6ft. x 4ft. No commercial activity is involved. The weaver of a handloom just prepares the cloth. Wither he sells the same in the market or he supplies it in the market if he is carrying a contract job. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent is quite near to the facts in hand.
Section 15 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Sant Ram vs Rajinder Lal And Ors on 22 September, 1978
In the case of Sant Ram (supra), it was held as under:-
M.K. Palaniappa Chettiar And Anr. vs A. Pennuswami Pillai on 27 February, 1970
16. The counsel, then, relied upon M.K. Palaniappa Chettiar and Anr. v. A. Pennuswami Pillai, 1970 R.C.R. 393, wherein it was held that if a portion of the building which has been used for cooking was very negligible while the rest of the building was being continued to be used for the purpose for which it was taken on lease, it will not amount to change of user.
1