Whether tenancy created for commercial purpose can be terminated on ground of availability of alternative accommodation?

It would be noticed that as soon as it is found that the premises in question have been used by respondent 1 incidentally for professional purposes and it is further established that this use is made with the consent of the landlord then the case goes outside the purview of s. 13(1)(e) altogether. In the present case it has been found by the appellate Court and the High Court that right from the commencement of the tenancy a substantial part of the premises is used by respondent 1 for his professional purpose, and they have also found that this has been done obviously with the consent of the landlord. It is unnecessary to refer to the evidence on which this finding is based. Even the trial Court was apparently inclined to take the same view about this evidence but it did not fully appreciate the effect of the explanation; otherwise it would have realised that the professional use of a substantial part of the premises with the consent of the appellant clearly takes the case outside s. 13(1)(e). In other words, where premises are let for residential purposes and it is shown that they are used by the tenant incidentally for commercial, professional or other purposes with the consent of the landlord the landlord would not be entitled to eject the tenant even if he proves that he needs the premises bona fide for his personal use because the premises have by their user ceased to be premises let for residential purposes alone. This position cannot be seriously disputed.

Supreme Court of India

Dr. Gopal Dass Verma vs Dr. S. K. Bhardwaj And Another on 2 May, 1961

Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 337, 1962 SCR (2) 678

BENCH:
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
WANCHOO, K.N.
GUPTA, K.C. DAS

Read full judgment here:Click here

Print Page