Can Tenants Be Evicted For Altering The Permitted Use Of Rented Property?: Gujarat High Court Answers

The Gujarat High Court has upheld a trial court’s eviction order against a tenant who had breached the terms of tenancy by altering the permitted business activity on the rented premises.

The property, originally leased for cycle repair work, was later used for the business of seat covers, number plates, and automobile accessories, prompting the landlord to seek eviction.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker set aside the Appellate Court's decision, which had previously quashed the trial court's order.

The High Court observed that the tenant’s unilateral change in business was a clear violation of the tenancy agreement. "The defendants tenant have not averred any explanation to the fact that they are doing business of seat covers and accessories in the suit premises and if in the present case, there is express terms, defendants tenant were not entitled to use of shop for any other business other than cycle repairing work and as the present defendants tenant are not doing business of cycle repairing work and are doing in the name of Noble Seat Covers and Accessories. The failure of the defendants to observe and perform the terms and condition of the Rent Note entitled the plaintiffs a decree of eviction," the Court noted.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose when the plaintiff-landlord moved the trial court seeking eviction of the tenant for violating the terms of the lease. The property was leased in 1963 exclusively for cycle repair work. After the original tenant’s death, defendant No. 1 became the tenant but changed the nature of business without obtaining the landlord’s consent. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the eviction of the tenant.

The tenant then approached the appellate court, which ruled in his favor, reasoning that due to changing times—over five to six decades—the cycle repair business had become obsolete, and the tenant was justified in shifting to a new trade. The landlord challenged this verdict before the Gujarat High Court.

Court’s Observations

The Single Bench rejected the Appellate Court’s reasoning, holding that the tenancy explicitly restricted the property’s use to cycle repair work. The Court noted that the Rent Note signed between the parties clearly stated that the tenant could not use the premises for any other business without the landlord’s consent.

"There was clear clause in the rent note which was agreed by the defendants tenant that they will not use the suit property except cycle repairing work, admission is the best evidence," it said.

The Court commissioner’s report confirmed that the property was being used for automobile accessories, seat covers, and number plates, with no evidence of cycle repair work. Furthermore, the tenant admitted during cross-examination that for the past 7-8 years, he had been running a business under the name "Noble Seat Covers and Accessories" without obtaining the landlord’s approval.

The Court also rejected the argument that the evolution of society justified changing the business type. The Single Bench remarked. "Just because of the change in society, can the defendants now start another business that is trending in the market? The fact remains that the property was given exclusively for cycle repairing work. Without the landlord's permission, the defendants had no right to start another business."

The Court further dismissed the tenant’s claim that cycle repair work was still being conducted, stating that the defendant failed to produce any evidence proving this assertion.

"The observations of the appellate Court that is only because use of cycle was discontinued because of change of time and because of fact in all circumstances of society development at city business, the defendants can start another business without the permission of the plaintiffs. The said observations cannot be sustained as without the permission of the plaintiffs and without consent of the plaintiffs landlord, the defendants could not have started any other business when the suit property was given specifically for cycle repairing work and when the defendants failed to prove the fact that the defendants are using the premises for cycle repairing work and the defendants did not have any document to show that they were doing cycle repairing business in the suit property," the Court said.

Conclusion

Upholding the trial court’s eviction order, the High Court ruled, "The trial court, after going through the documentary evidence and the oral evidence, has rightly held that the plaintiffs have proved the fact that there was change of use by the defendants. The trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that suit shop was specifically given for cycle repairing work whereas suit shop utilized for seat covers and automobile accessories, and therefore, the decree of eviction on the basis of proposition of law laid down of series of decision, the said conclusion of the trial Court cannot be said to be found perverse in any form."

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the landlord’s revision plea and reinstated the trial court’s eviction order, setting aside the Appellate Court’s ruling.

Cause Title: Irshadunnisha & Anr. v. Makbulhusen Abbasali Saiyed Heirs of Deceased Abbasali Haji Muradali Saiyed & Ors. [C/CRA/400/2023]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocate Fouzan N. Soniwala, Arshad Shaikh

Opponent: Advocates NN Ajmeri, SD Mansuri

Click here to read/download the Judgment