Case Brief: Bharat Lal Baranwal Vs. Virendra Kumar Agarwal

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 21th January, 2003
Bench: CJI, Justice Ashok Bhan
Facts of the Case: The suit premises consisting of three rooms were admittedly let out for business purpose of selling of copies and books in the year 1970 by the father of the appellant to the respondent-tenant. In the year 1976, the respondent started manufacturing copies, registers sweet-meat boxes made of card board. In the year 1982 he installed a printing machine and started printing work without obtaining the written consent of the appellant. It may be stated that father of the appellant died in the year 1978 leaving behind his widow Smt. Ramrati Devi and three sons, namely, Ramayan Prasad, Jagdish Prasad and Bharat Lal Baranwal(appellant). In the family settlement, the northern portion of house including the suit premises was allotted to the appellant, as such he became the owner as well as the landlord of the suit premises. After issuing notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and passage of statutory notice period, appellant instituted the suit for eviction under Section 20(2) of the Act against the respondent. In response to the notice issued, the respondent entered appearance and filed the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following three issues were framed. 1. Whether the defendant started manufacturing work in the premises in suit and thereby violated the terms of the tenancy? 2. Whether the notice is invalid and the suit is not maintainable? 3. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?
Judgement of the Case: : On the submissions made before us the only point required to be determined in these appeals is: as to whether the tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) having started using the premises in dispute for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out to him without the written consent of the appellant-landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) is liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Section 20 (2)(d) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) . The Supreme Court held that as Turing without the written consent of the landlord before and after the Amendment of the Act, he became liable to be evicted under Section 20(2)(d) of the Act. High Court thus erred in reversing the well considered judgment of the Revisional Court. For the reasons stated above the appeals are accepted. The Order of the High Court is set aside and that of the revisional court restored. Since the tenant has been in occupation of the building for the last nearly 30 years he is granted time upto 30th of June, 2003 to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the building to the landlord on giving of usual undertakingwithin four weeks and payment of arrears of rent, if any, and to pay future rent as and when it falls due as per the agreed terms. In the event of failure to give the undertaking as directed above, the appellant shall be a liberty to seek immediate possession of the suit premises through the process of the Court. There will be no order as to costs.