https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193732 A lease requiring construction of a house, but containing no express restriction to residential use, was construed as permitting non-residential letting. Applying expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court treated the omission of a use restriction as deliberate, especially where other appendices in the same rules expressly limited use or prohibited non-residential occupation. On that reading, letting out the first floor for non-residential purposes did not breach the lease deed, and forfeiture or re-entry on that ground was not sustainable. The Court did not decide separate arguments based on municipal or development-plan restrictions because the impugned action rested only on alleged breach of the lease. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:31:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193732 A lease requiring construction of a house, but containing no express restriction to residential use, was construed as permitting non-residential letting. Applying expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court treated the omission of a use restriction as deliberate, especially where other appendices in the same rules expressly limited use or prohibited non-residential occupation. On that reading, letting out the first floor for non-residential purposes did not breach the lease deed, and forfeiture or re-entry on that ground was not sustainable. The Court did not decide separate arguments based on municipal or development-plan restrictions because the impugned action rested only on alleged breach of the lease. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193732