Landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant under S.13(2) (ii) (b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applied to Himachal Pradesh on the ground that the premises were being used for a purpose other than the one for which they were let out.
There is no case of written consent put forward by the tenant. But he contested the landlord's claim by asserting that there was no specific commercial purpose inscribed in the demise and, therefore, it was not possible to postulate a diversion of purpose. Secondly, he urged that, even assuming that the letting was for a commercial purpose, the fact that he had cooked his food or stayed at night in the rear portion of the small shop did not offend against S. 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act.
The lease deed, disclosed no purpose; but inferentially it has been held by the High Court that the lease being of a shop the purpose must have been commercial. Possible; not necessarily sure. The actual life situations and urban conditions of India, especially where poor tradesmen like cobblers, candle-stick makers, cycle repairers and Tanduri bakers, take out small spaces on rent, do not warrant an irresistible inference that if the lease is of a shop the purpose of the lease must be commercial.
You struggle to make a small income and work late into the right from early in the morning and, during intervals, rest your bones in the same place, drawing down the shutters of the shop for a while. The primary purpose is to ply a petty trade, the secondary, but necessary incident, is to sleep in the same place since you can hardly afford anything but a pavement. In this view, the appeal is allowed with costs. The tenant shall not be ejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment