Non  -  Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.9598   of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.19594 of 2008)

RAVI CHAND MANGLA .... Appellant

Versus

DIMPAL SOLANIA & ORS.                             ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.    

1. The petition for eviction filed by the Appellant under

Section  13  of  the  Haryana  Urban  (Control  of  Rent  and

Eviction) Act, 1973 was dismissed by the Rent Controller.

The judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal

by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad and in revision by the

High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh.

Aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed.        

2. The Appellant  is  the landlord of the premises which

was let  out  on 04.01.1957 on payment  of  rent  of  58.26

paisa per month.  The Appellant filed a petition for eviction

1

under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and

Eviction)  Act,  1973  for  ejectment  of  the  tenants  on  the

following grounds: (i) “That the respondents have defaulted to pay rent

and  is  now  in  arrears  of  rent  for  60  months   beginning  from  Kwar  Bati  1  Sambat  2040  to   Sawan Singh Sudhi 15 Sambat 2015;

(ii) That respondent No.1 has sub-let the property in  dispute to the respondents No.2 & 3;

(iii) That respondents have impaired the value and   utility of the prosperity in dispute;

(vi) That  respondents  are  nuisance  to  the   neighborhood;

(v) That the respondents have changed the user of  the property in dispute;”  

3. The  Rent  Controller  framed  the  following  issues  for

consideration:

1. “Whether the respondent No.1 is in arrears of   rent if so its effect? OPP

2. Whether  the  respondent  No.1  has  sub-let  the   demised premises to the respondents No.2 & 3  without the consent of the petitioner? OPP

3. Whether the respondent has materially impaired  the value and utility of the building in question? OPP

4. Whether  the  respondents  are  nuisance   neighborhood if so its effect? OPP

5. Whether the respondents have changed the user of the demised premises without the consent  of the petitioners? OPP

6. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and   non- joinder of necessary parties? OPR.

2

7. Relief.”

4. The Rent Controller held issue No.1 in favour of the

Respondents by observing that the arrears of rent for three

years between 01.09.1985 to 31.12.1988 were deposited in

the Court.   The Rent Controller observed that sub-letting of

the property in dispute by the Respondents was not proved.

Reliance was placed on the evidence of PW-4, Har Saroop,

who  admitted  in  his  cross  examination  that  the  first

Respondent was continuing to do business in the name of

M/s Solania Engineering Works.  The Rent Controller was of

the opinion that it cannot be said that Respondent No.1 was

in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. Likewise

issues No.3 and 4 pertaining to material alterations to the

property and nuisance created by the Respondents in the

activity of manufacturing of grills was rejected by the Rent

Controller.   While deciding issue No.5, the Rent Controller

perused the rent agreement and was convinced that the

Respondents  were  given  the  property  not  only  for  the

purpose of installing the saw mill but also for carrying out

any other type of business.  The contention raised by the

Appellant that the saw mill for which purpose the property

3

was let out was closed by the Respondents 4/5 years prior

to  the  filing  of  the  eviction  petition  and  the  work  of

manufacturing  of  grills  was  going  on  which  amounts  to

change of user, was rejected by the Rent Controller.  On the

basis  of  the aforesaid,  the Rent  Controller  dismissed the

eviction  petition.   The  Appellant  did  not  question  the

conclusion of the Rent Controller on issues No.1 and 4 in

the appeal before the Appellate Authority.   The Appellate

Authority  found  no  fault  with  the  judgment  of  the  Rent

Controller on the other issues.   On the issue of change of

user,  the Appellate Authority found that the Respondents

had the liberty to run any other business activity apart from

the saw mill as per the rent agreement.   The High Court

discussed the issues involved in the case carefully and held

that there was neither sub-letting nor any impairment to

the value and utility of the premises.   The allegation of

change of user was rejected by the High Court.        

5. It was submitted before this Court that the Appellant is

a reputed doctor who is aged 96 years and the premises in

question is about 2000 sq. feet which is part of a larger plot

of land which the Appellant intends to use for construction

4

of  a  hospital  for  charitable  purpose.    Looking  at  the

laudable object, we adjourned the matter several times to

enable  the  parties  to  settle  the  matter.   In  spite  of  our

persuasion,  the Respondents-  tenants were not willing to

accept  monetary compensation for  evicting the premises

and re-locating to another site.   The Respondents contend

that they will lose their livelihood if they are evicted from

the premises.   Having no  other  alternative,  we kept  the

matter for decision on merits.  

6. There are two submissions that are made on behalf of

the Appellant.   The first point relates to non-payment of

outstanding rent.  The counter affidavit filed on behalf of

the Respondents was referred to submit that the arrears of

rent  from  01.04.1993  to  31.08.2009  was  paid  only  on

24.09.2009 which would  amount  to  non-payment  of  rent

which  is  a  ground  for  eviction.   We  are  afraid  that  we

cannot agree with the submission made on behalf of the

Appellant.   It  is  clear  from  the  judgment  of  the  Rent

Controller that the arrears of rent were paid for three years

prior to the filing of the eviction petition.  It is also clear

from the  judgment  of  the  First  Appellate  Court  that  the

5

Appellant did not assail the findings of the Rent Controller

on issue No.1 pertaining to default in payment of rent.   We

cannot  permit  the  Appellant  to  make  submissions  for

payment of default of arrears of rent at this stage.   

7. The main point urged on behalf of the Appellant is that

the premises which was let out for saw mill is now being

utilized  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  of  grills  which

amount to change of user.  Submissions were made before

us by both sides on the interpretation of terms of the rent

agreement.    On  a  perusal  of  the  agreement,  we  are

convinced  that  there  is  no  restriction  placed  on  the

Respondents-tenant  to  run  business  only  relating  to  the

saw mill.  The tenant was given the liberty to carry on any

other business as well.    In the absence of any negative

covenant the user does not amount to user for the purpose

other  than  for  which  the  premises  was  leased.1.    A

premises taken on rent for ‘sugarcane crushing’ was used

for cloth business in which case the landlord’s contention

that there was change of user was rejected2.    We agree

1 Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan 1988 (2) SCC 474 2 Dashrath Baburao Sangale and Ors.  v. Kashimath Bhaskar Data  1994 Supp (1) SCC 504  

6

with  the  judgments  of  the  Courts  below  which  are  in

accordance with the law laid down by this Court.    

8. In view of the aforesaid findings, we see no reason to

interfere with the judgment of the High Court.  The appeal

is dismissed.  No costs.  

             ...................................J

                                    [  L. NAGESWARA RAO  ]

..................................................J [  MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR  ]

NEW DELHI;  SEPTEMBER 18, 2018

7