Change of user in a residential tenancy can arise from use of part premises for a different purpose without written consent.
Use of even part of premises let solely for residence for a different scheduled purpose, without the landlord's written consent, constitutes a change of user under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and attracts eviction. The statutory wording does not require conversion of the entire building; the altered use of part of the premises is legally sufficient where the building's character is changed from residential to a scheduled use. A plea of waiver or acquiescence will fail unless the landlord's consent or conduct is clearly proved, and mere assertion of estoppel is insufficient without supporting material.
Issues: (i) Whether a tenant's use of even part of a residential building for an unalLeased purpose amounts to change of user attracting eviction under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949; (ii) whether the landlord had waived or acquiesced in the altered user so as to defeat the eviction claim.
Issue (i): Whether a tenant's use of even part of a residential building for an unalLeased purpose amounts to change of user attracting eviction under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Analysis: The provision makes the tenant liable where the building is used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The omission of the word "entire" in clause (b), contrasted with its use in clause (a), shows that the legislature did not require a change of user of the whole building. The statutory definitions also show that a residential building may become a scheduled building if a part is used for a scheduled purpose, and the Act treats such user as legally significant. On the proved facts, use of part of the premises as a lawyer's office changed the character of the premises from one let solely for residence to one used for a scheduled purpose without written consent.
Conclusion: The ground of eviction under section 13(2)(ii)(b) was made out and the High Court was wrong in reversing the eviction order.
Issue (ii): Whether the landlord had waived or acquiesced in the altered user so as to defeat the eviction claim.
Analysis: No conduct establishing consent, waiver, or acquiescence by the landlord was shown. The tenant's plea of estoppel had already been rejected on facts, and that finding was neither challenged effectively nor supported by any material warranting a different conclusion.
Conclusion: The plea of waiver or acquiescence failed.
Final Conclusion: The eviction order was restored and the tenant's revision succeeded only before the High Court, which was held to have misconstrued the governing rent-control provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: Use of even a part of premises let solely for residence for a different scheduled purpose, without the landlord's written consent, constitutes change of user sufficient to attract eviction under the rent-control provision.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
