where premises are let for residential purposes and it is shown that they are used by the tenant incidentally for commercial, professional or other purposes with the consent of the landlord the landlord would not be entitled to eject the tenant even if he proves that he needs the premises bona fide for his personal use because the premises have by their user ceased to be premises let for residential purposes alone.
The requirement is that the tenant must have suitable residence. Both words of the requirement are significant; what he has acquired must be a residence and the premises from which ejectment is sought are used not only for residence but also for profession, how could S. 13(1)(h) come into operation? One of the purposes for which the tenancy is acquired is professional use, and that cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of premises which are suitable for residence alone, and it is the suitability for residence alone which is postulated by S. 13(1)(h). Therefore, in our opinion, it would be unreasonable to hold that tenancy which has been created or used both for residence and profession can be successfully terminated merely be showing that the tenant has acquired a suitable residence
No comments:
Post a Comment