Can Tenants Be Evicted For Changing 'Exclusive Use' Of Property As Mentioned In Rent Note? Gujarat HC Answers

The Gujarat High Court has upheld a trial court's eviction order which had held that the tenants had breached the terms of tenancy concerning a property which was originally given on rent to be exclusively used for a cycle repair business but was eventually being used to conduct business of seat covers and accessories. 

The high court was hearing a revision plea against judgment of the Appellate court which had quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court in a civil suit. The trial court had allowed a plea for eviction of defendants; this was challenged by defendants before the appellate court which allowed the defendants' appeal. Against this the plaintiff moved the high court. 

The appellate court had taken the view that because of passing of time, 52 to 62 years and change in the entire circumstances of the society and development at the city business, the cycle work business could not have been continued by the defendants as use of cycle was decreasing; therefore they were entitled to start another business.

Justice Sanjeev J Thaker in his order took note of the "Rent Note" which stated that the property has to be used only for cycle repairing business and the parties, i.e. the landlord and tenant have specifically entered into an agreement where the defendants tenant have specifically agreed that, they will not use the suit premises for any other purpose than cycle repairing work.

The court however noted that as per the court commissioner's report the  property was being used for business of seat cover, number plate, automobile accessories and that there are seat covers of different size found at the property. 

"From the oral evidence of the tenant...also though the defendants tenant have mentioned that they are still doing business of cycle repairing work, the defendants admit that along-with the business of cycle repairing work, they are also doing business of seat cover from the suit premises.The defendants have also admitted in his cross-examination that since 7 to 8 years, the defendants are doing business in the name of Noble Seat Covers and Accessories and not taken permission for change of business from plaintiffs for change of business. Though, the defendants have stated that they have not completely stopped the business of cycle repairing work, but at the same time that they do not have any proof to show that they are doing cycle repairing work in the suit premises. The fact remains that when the property has been given exclusively for the business of cycle repairing work, just because of the change in the society can the defendants now start another business which is current in the market and city and just because now nobody is using cycle, therefore, can the defendants start new business?"

The court noted that the appellate court's observations cannot be sustained as without the plaintiff's permission and consent the defendants could not have started any other business when the property was given specifically for cycle repairing work. The high court further said that the defendants failed to prove that they were using the premises for cycle repairing work and they did not have any document to prove the same.

It was the plaintiff's case that it had let out its property on rent to the defendant in 1963 for business of cycle work; after the death of the original tenant, the defendant No.1 became the tenant of the premises. The plaintiffs said that the property was let on rent for the business of cycle repair work only and that the defendant No.1, changed the use of shop and is now doing the business of seat covers, number plate and accessories etc.. Therefore, as the Defendant No.1 has committed breach of the terms of condition of the rent note, the plaintiffs had sought possession of the property.

The high court, however upheld the trial court order and said, "Therefore, 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".

It thus allowed the revision plea and set aside the appellate court's order. 

Case title: IRSHADUNNISHA & ANR. v/s  MAKBULHUSEN ABBASALI SAIYED HEIRS OF DECEASED ABBASALI HAJI MURADALI SAIYED & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 53