Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Gurdial Batra vs Raj Kumar Jain on 18 July, 1989
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain (supra), the judgment of this Court in the case of Bright Brother and/or Kasturchand Panachand (both cited supra) cannot be said to be a good law. Thus the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court, that the premises were used for the purpose other than that for which it was let out, cannot stand to the scrutiny of law. In view of this, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court with regard to breach of Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act will have to be set aside. The plaint did not make out any case falling within the sweep of Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, no evidence was led to the effect that the change of business was destructive of the purpose for which the premises was leased, the adverse findings on this issue recorded by the Courts below are thus set aside.
Section 13 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
U. Po Naing vs The Burma Oil Company Limited. on 4 February, 1929
"........The concept of injury to the premises which forms the foundation of Clause (b) is the main basis for providing Clause (b) in Section 13(2)(ii) of the Act as a ground for the tenant's eviction. The Privy Council in U Po Naing v. Burma Oil Co., AIR 1929 PC 108 adopted the same consideration. The Kerala High Court has held that premises let out for conducting trade in gold if also used for a wine store would not amount to an act destructive of or permanently injurious to the leased property (1977 Ker LT 417). Similarly, the Bombay High Court has held that when the lease deed provided for user work and the lessee used the premises for business in plastic goods, change kin the nature of business did not bring about change of user as contemplated in Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act."