Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Property law

M/S. K.B. SAHA & SONS PVT. LTD. versus M/S. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT LTD.

Clause 9 in the unregistered lease agreement, regarding occupancy by a named officer, is an important term and not a collateral purpose; it cannot be relied upon, even as collateral evidence, for eviction, as the agreement is inadmissible. Leasing to a different officer of the respondent does not constitute 'change of user' under s.108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. For eviction under the Act, the landlord must establish grounds under s.13, which is not established here.

Source excerpt

  • Registration of lease deeds
  • Protection of tenant
  • Change of user
  • Collateral purpose
  • Eviction under tenancy laws
Read case analysis
Landlord-tenant

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).

Source excerpt

  • Eviction
  • Lease terms
  • Change of user
  • Acts of waste
Read case analysis
Rent control

THE GOA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus NOOR MOHD. SHEIKH MUSSA AND ANR.

Premises let out for 'office' use, when used as 'godown' for record storage after shifting banking activities elsewhere, constitutes a change of user under Section 22(2)(b)(ii) and entitles landlord to eviction; further, absence of RBI permission for banking activities at suit premises supports eviction.

Source excerpt

  • Change of user
  • Eviction of tenant
  • Lease purpose
  • Banking regulation
Read case analysis
Rent control

BHARAT LAL BARANWAL versus VIRENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL

Tenant, having changed the user of the premises from business to manufacturing without written consent of the landlord, is liable to eviction under Section 20(2)(d) both before and after its amendment.

Source excerpt

  • Change of user
  • Written consent
  • U.p. urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) act 1972
Read case analysis
Rent and eviction

M/S. ATUL CASTINGS LTD. versus BAWA GURVACHAN SINGH

Use of a room in a residential building by the tenant for disposal of office files or study by family members does not amount to a change in user for purposes of Section 13(2)(ii)(b); absence of regular commercial activity or office does not alter residential character; eviction cannot be ordered without necessary pleadings and evidence.

Source excerpt

  • Eviction of tenant
  • Change of user
  • Burden of proof
  • Interpretation of statutory provisions
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JAGDISH LAL versus PARMANAND

A temporary change of user from the purpose for which the premises was let (general merchant, readymade and cloth merchant) to a restaurant, later reverted to original use, does not justify eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act in the absence of persistent unauthorized user; moreover, an undertaking to vacate does not bar access to Article 136 remedies, though the discretion to grant leave remains with the Supreme Court.

Source excerpt

  • Article 136 slp
  • Eviction
  • Change of user
  • Undertaking to court
Read case analysis
Rent control

M. ARUL JOTHI AND ANR. versus LAJJA BAL (DECEASED) AND ANR.

Where a specific prohibition clause exists in the lease agreement restricting the user of the premises to the stated business only, carrying on any other business constitutes 'change of user' under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and is a valid ground for eviction.

Source excerpt

  • Eviction
  • Change of user
  • Lease agreement interpretation
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus JASWANT RAI KOCHHAR AND ORS.

Land acquired for one public purpose (housing scheme) can be used for another public purpose (District Centre/commercial purpose); hence, notification under Section 4(1) could not have been quashed on ground of change of user.

Source excerpt

  • Public purpose
  • Change of user
  • Alternative site entitlement
Read case analysis
Property law

BISHAMBER DASS KOHLI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus SMT. SATYA BHALLA

Change of user of even a part of the residential building for a scheduled purpose, such as a lawyer's office, without written consent of the landlord, satisfies the ground for eviction under section 13(2)(ii)(b), and High Court erred in setting aside eviction order.

Source excerpt

  • Eviction
  • Change of user
  • Scheduled building
  • Residential building
  • Rent control
Read case analysis
Tenancy law

D.C. OSWAL versus V.K. SUBBIAH AND ORS.

When the landlord habitually collects rent for periods of up to three months at a time, failure to pay rent within a similar period cannot amount to wilful default under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Raising a ground of 'change of user' after several years of acquiescence does not constitute valid ground for eviction.

Source excerpt

  • Wilful default
  • Change of user
  • Eviction
  • Landlord and tenant
  • Rent control
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.