VORA RAHIMBHAI HAJI HASANBHAI POPAT versus VORA SUNDERLAL MANILAL & ANR.

VORA RAHIMBHAI HAJI HASANBHAI POPAT versus VORA SUNDERLAL MANILAL & ANR.

Tenant admitted to have used premises for business, and business stopped for four to five years prior to suit; not using the premises for the purpose for which they had been let out makes tenant liable for eviction under s.13(1)(k). Stipulation in rent note does not override statutory requirement of use; mere payment of rent for non-use cannot contract out of law. High Court erred in treating construction of superstructure as user when it was already in existence before tenancy commenced.

Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Vora Rahimbhai Hasanbhai Popat; Respondent Tenant No.1: Vora Sunderlal Manilal; Respondent Tenant No.2 (sub Tenant): Pa Babubhai Gordhanbhai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 November 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; plaintiff's suit decreed.
Legal Topics
Eviction of Tenant, Non User of Leased Premises, Interpretation of Rent Note, Sub Tenancy Under Statutory Tenancy
Property Law Landlord Tenant Law Eviction of Tenant Non User of Leased Premises Interpretation of Rent Note Sub Tenancy Under Statutory Tenancy

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vora Rahimbhai Hasanbhai Popat

Appellant Plaintiff

Vora Sunderlal Manilal

Respondent Tenant No.1

Pa Babubhai Gordhanbhai

Respondent Tenant No.2 (sub Tenant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenant is liable for eviction for not using premises for more than six months as per Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether stipulation in rent note regarding payment of rent for non-use absolves liability for eviction

Ratio Decidendi

Tenant admitted to have used premises for business, and business stopped for four to five years prior to suit; not using the premises for the purpose for which they had been let out makes tenant liable for eviction under s.13(1)(k). Stipulation in rent note does not override statutory requirement of use; mere payment of rent for non-use cannot contract out of law. High Court erred in treating construction of superstructure as user when it was already in existence before tenancy commenced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; plaintiff's suit decreed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit for eviction stands decreed;
  • Parties to bear own costs.