Ram Gopal v. Jai Narain And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns premises demised (leased) for the purpose of running a shop. The tenant installed an Atta Chakki and an Oil Kohlu in the demised premises. The case reached the appellate stage as a civil appeal, where the issue was whether such installation resulted in a change of user attracting eviction under Section 13(2)(d) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, where the property was demised for running a shop, the tenant’s installation of an Atta Chakki and Oil Kohlu constitutes a change of user making the tenant liable to eviction under Section 13(2)(d) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
2. Whether the tenant’s subsequent purchase of a 1/4th share of the demised premises affects the landlord’s ability to recover possession or otherwise negates the tenant’s liability to eviction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There was no change in user because the activity remained “business” in nature despite installation of the machinery.
• As a subsequent event, the appellant had purchased a 1/4th share in the demised premises; the Court could take note of this, and therefore the landlord could not recover possession “as on today.”

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court framed the “short question” as whether installation of an Atta Chakki and Oil Kohlu in premises leased for a shop would attract eviction under Section 13(2)(d). The Court reasoned that, in light of its own ruling that installation of such machinery amounts to “manufacture,” it was not difficult to conclude that there was a change of user. It rejected the appellant’s contention that there was no change because the activity was still “business,” emphasizing that the relevant inquiry was not business in the abstract but the specific nature of the activity—namely, the running of a flour mill—which altered the user.

On the appellant’s submission regarding the subsequent purchase of a 1/4th share of the premises, the Court declined to examine the contention in detail. It nevertheless stated that the purchase of a 1/4th share did not “in any way” obliterate the liability to be evicted.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The civil appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The direct effect is that the finding of change of user (based on installation of machinery amounting to manufacture and thus altering the user to running a flour mill) stands, and the tenant remains liable to eviction under Section 13(2)(d). The Court also clarified that the tenant’s subsequent purchase of a 1/4th share of the premises does not erase that eviction liability. The opinion does not discuss broader implications or set out any new precedent beyond the decision in this case.