Unregistered lease terms and change of user: occupancy by a different officer did not justify eviction on the facts.

An unregistered lease deed could not be relied on to enforce a tenancy restriction requiring occupation only by a named officer, because that clause was an essential term affecting rights in immovable property and not a mere collateral purpose. The landlord therefore could not use Clause 9 to support eviction. The tenant's use of the premises by another officer also did not amount to change of user under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, because the premises continued to be used for residential occupation and the lease purpose had not changed. On that basis, no legally sustainable ground for eviction was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Clause 9 of the unregistered lease agreement could be looked into as evidence of a collateral purpose so as to restrict the tenant-company from accommodating any officer other than the named employee; (ii) Whether the respondent's use of the premises for another officer amounted to change of user attracting eviction under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issue (i): Whether Clause 9 of the unregistered lease agreement could be looked into as evidence of a collateral purpose so as to restrict the tenant-company from accommodating any officer other than the named employee.

Analysis: A document required to be registered is inadmissible to prove the transaction affecting immovable property, though it may be used for a collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument. A collateral purpose must be independent of the main transaction and cannot be used to establish or extinguish rights in immovable property. The clause restricting occupation to a particular named officer was not a mere collateral fact but an essential term of the tenancy arrangement and, as the lease deed was unregistered, that clause could not be relied upon to found an eviction claim.

Conclusion: Clause 9 could not be used even for collateral purposes against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's use of the premises for another officer amounted to change of user attracting eviction under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: Change of user under Section 108(o) concerns a use different from the purpose for which the property was leased, such as a residential letting being used for a commercial purpose or vice versa. A stipulation that the premises was to be occupied by a particular named officer does not define the legal purpose of the lease itself. On the facts, the premises continued to be used for residential occupation, and substitution of one officer for another did not amount to use for a different purpose.

Conclusion: The respondent did not commit change of user and was not liable to eviction on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The landlord failed to establish any legally sustainable ground for eviction, and the dismissal of both suits and the connected appeals was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered lease cannot be used to enforce an essential term that affects rights in immovable property, and replacement of one residential occupant with another does not by itself constitute change of user under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.

---