HARI RAO versus N. GOVINDACHARI AND ORS.

A tenant, when leased premises for carrying on a trade without prohibitive covenant, can carry on any trade consistent with premises' nature. Using premises for readymade garments as opposed to leather goods does not constitute a change of user attracting Section 10(2)(ii)(b). Fixing racks, drilling holes, and putting signboards, absent evidence of material impairment, do not amount to acts of waste under Section 10(2)(iii).

Parties: Appellant Tenant: Hari Rao; Respondent Landlord: N. Govindachari
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 15 September 2005
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome: Appeal allowed; eviction order set aside; landlord's eviction petition dismissed.
Legal Topics: Eviction, Lease Terms, Change of User, Acts of Waste

Landlord Tenant Rent Control Eviction Lease Terms Change of User Acts of Waste

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2

Parties

Hari Rao

Appellant Tenant

N. Govindachari

Respondent Landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether tenant's use of leased premises for a purpose other than specified in lease deed permits eviction under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
2 Whether fixing racks, drilling holes, and other acts by tenant constitute acts of waste likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building under Section 10(2)(iii)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; eviction order set aside; landlord's eviction petition dismissed.

Orders

Decision of High Court set aside
Decision of Appellate Authority restored