TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds eviction due to unauthorized change of commercial property use.</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, finding that the tenant's change of use of the premises from an office to a godown constituted a violation of ... - Issues Involved:1. Change of use of the demised premises.2. Premises lying closed for over four months.3. Bona fide personal use by the landlord.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Change of Use of the Demised Premises:The primary issue was whether the premises, let out for use as an 'office,' could be used as a 'godown' for storage of records, and if such use constituted a change of purpose under Section 22(2)(b)(ii) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The lease specified that the premises were to be used for the functioning of the tenant's office. However, the tenant shifted its office and began using the premises for storing records. The Rent Controller found that the premises were being used as a 'godown' and not as an 'office,' constituting a change of use. The High Court upheld this finding, concluding that the right of the landlord to seek eviction cannot be negated by the tenant's subsequent restoration of the premises to their original use. The court emphasized that the premises were intended for office use, and using them solely for storage did not fulfill this purpose. The High Court further noted that the tenant admitted to using the premises for storage and planned to shift the records to another location, indicating a change in use.2. Premises Lying Closed for Over Four Months:The Rent Controller also found that the premises were lying closed from 1982 to 1993, which exceeded the four-month period stipulated in the Act. This finding was based on the tenant's admission and the evidence presented, leading to the conclusion that the landlord had ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months before the eviction proceedings were initiated. The High Court concurred with this finding, reinforcing the ground for eviction.3. Bona Fide Personal Use by the Landlord:The third ground for eviction was the landlord's bona fide need for personal use of the premises. However, this ground was rejected by the Rent Controller, and the High Court did not overturn this aspect of the decision. The focus remained on the change of use and the premises lying closed.Legal Definitions and Interpretations:The judgment delved into the definitions of 'office' and 'godown,' emphasizing their meanings in common parlance and legal dictionaries. An 'office' was defined as a place for regular business transactions or administrative work, while a 'godown' was understood as a warehouse or storage place. The court referenced various legal dictionaries and precedents to illustrate these definitions. The court also discussed the implications of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, highlighting that the tenant had not shown any permission from the Reserve Bank of India to continue banking activities at the demised premises after shifting its main office.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, concluding that the tenant had indeed changed the use of the premises from an office to a godown, which constituted a violation of Section 22(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the eviction order was maintained, with no order as to costs. The court emphasized that the change of use from office to godown was significant and not merely a shift in business activities, thus justifying the landlord's right to seek eviction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
