MOHAN LALversusJAI BHAGWAN

                             MOHAN LAL
                                                                             A
                                    v.
                           JAI BHAGWAN

                           MARCH 23, 1988

 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANA1HAN, JJ.]                               B

      Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 Section
13(2)(ii)(b)-Tenant-Eviction of-Use of building for purpose other
than for which leased.                              ·

      Landlord-Renting out shop-Tenant-To run business of Eng-
lish Liquor Vend-Do sale of liquor-Liquor licence not renewed-               c
Tenant doing business of general merchandise-Whether change in
user.

    Statutory Interpretation: Statutes-Words and expressions-
Meaning must be found in ·the felt necessities of the time.                  D

      The appeUant-tenant took on rent the suit premises from the
respondent-landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.120 and executed a rent
note in bis favour on 19th April, 1975. Clause 4 of the rent note pro-
vided that the tenant was to run the 'business of English Liquor Vend,
and do sale of liquor in the shop.'                                          E

     The respondent filed a petition for eviction under section 13 of the
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 against the
appellant on the ground of arrears of rent from 1st April, 1979 to 3 Ist
August, 1979 and change of user from liquor vend business to that of
general merchandise.                                                         F

      The appellant tendered the entire arrears of rent at the first date
of hearing, and contested the eviction petition by filing a written state-
ment contending that after March, 1979 the licence of liquor-vend in_ his
favour was not renewed, and he had to dtscontinue that business at the
suit premises, and had to start the business of general merchandise. It      G
was, further, contended that the purpose of user still .remained com-
mercial and that there was no clause in the· rent note prohibiting the
appellant to change to any other business. .

      The Rent Controller held that the appeUant had changed the user
of the shop iii dispute and that be was liable for eviction under the Act.   H
                                   345
                 t.




    346                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1988] 3 S.C.R.

          The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The High Court
A
    also dismissed the Civil Revision and upheld the order of eviction.

            Allowing the Appeal, this Court,

          HELD: 1. The business purposes must be adjudged in the light of
B   the purposes of the Rent Act in question which is to control the eviction
    of tenants therefrom. [349C]

           2. In the expanding concept of business now-a-days and the
    growing concept of departmental stores, it cannot be said that there was
    any change of user in the instant case, when the tenant converted the
    use of the building from liquor vend business to that of general
c   merchandise. The building was rented for the purpose of carrying on a
    busin!!SS. It was used for another business which would not in any way
    impair the utility or damage to the building, and the business could be
    conveniently carried on in the said preinises. No nuisance was also
    created. The case would, therefore, not attract the mischief of s.
D   13(2)(ii)(b). [3490, 350E]

          3. So far as the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held in the
    Full Bench decision in Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal, (1984 Punjab Law
    Reporter 1) that allied business would not amount to change of user but
    for a business which is not allied for the business for which it was let     }-·
E   out would amount to change of user come within the mischief of clause
    (b) of section 13(2)(ii) of the Act, the same must be .read with reserva·
    lion. [348H, 349A]

           4. When Parliament legislates to remedy a defect or a lacuna in
    the existing law, and the judiciary interprets them, it has to be borne in
F   mind that the meaning of an expression must be found in the felt neces·
    sities of time. [349G-H, 350C·DI

          Duport Steels Ltd. & others v. Sirs and others, [1980) 1 AII.E.R.
    529 at 541, referred to.

G           CIVIL APPELLA1E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 50 of
    1988.                                                                        ~

        From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.87 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 2836 of 1982.

H           Dr. Meera Aggarwal for the Petitioner.
                  MOHAN LAL v. JAi BHAGWAN IMUKHARJI, J.]                  347

          A.B. Rohtagi, Mukul Rohtagi, Atul Tewari and Ms. Bina
                                                                                   A
      Gupta for the Respondent.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is
      directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and                B
      Haryana dated 14th August, 1987. The appellant took on rent the
      premises in dispute from the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.120
      and executed a rent note in his favour on 19th April, 1975. Clause 4 of
      the said rent note proVided, inter alia, as follows:

                  "That the tenant will run the business of English Liquor
                  Vend in the shop-will do sale ofLiquor."                         C

           The landlord, respondent herein filed a petition under section 13
      of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & EViction) Act, 1973
      (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the appellant on the ground of
      arrears of rent from 1.4.1979 to 31.8.1979 and change of user from           o
      Liquor Vend business to that of general merchandise at the shop iu
      dispute by the appellant.

             The appellant tendered the entire arrears of rent at the first date
      of hearing and thereafter he contested by filing written statement. The
      appellant submitted that after March, 1979, the licence of liquor-vend       E
      in his favour was not renewed and he had to discontinue thatbusine.ss
      of liq nor-vend at the shop in dispute and had to start the business of
      general merchandise. According to the appellant the purpose of the
      user still remains commercial and that in the rent note there was no
      clause prohibiting the appellant to change any other business in the
      shop in dispute.                                                             F

            The Rent Controller held that the appellant had changed the
      user of the shop in dispute and he was liable for eViction under the Act.
      There was an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate
      Authority dismissed the said appeal. The appellant went in ciVil reVi-
      sion to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dis-            G
_J.   missed the ciVil revision and upheld the eViction. Hence this appeal.

            The question is, whether a ground for eViction was made out
      under clause (b) of section 13(2)(ii) of the Act. The said Act was
      passed to control the increase of rent of certain buildings and rented
      land situated within the limits of urban areas, and the eViction of the      H
    348                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A   tenants therefrom. Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act reads as follows:

                "13(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply
                to the Controller, for direction in that behalf. If the Con-
                troller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of
                showing cause against the application is satisfied:
B
                (i) xx                        xx                           xx
                (ii) that the tenant has after commencement of 1949 Act,
                without the written consent of the landlord

c               (a) XX                        xx                           xx   ).--
                                                                                 I(
                                                                                  I
                                                                                  I
                (b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other
                than that for which it was leased."

        The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has relied on a Full
D Bench decision of the said High Court in Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal,
  [1984] Punjab Law Reporter 1. That was a case under the East Punjab
  Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949. The Full Bench of the Punjab and
  Haryana High Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held
  that it was a common ground that the premises was originally leased
  for the business of handlooms. Thereafter it was used for small carding         ~
E machine not occupying a space of more than 4 feet x 4 feet which
  converted cloth into thread. It was held that there was no change of
  user. The Full Bench, however, observed that it emerged from the
  long line of authorities that where the subsequent use of the premises
  is merely ancillary to the specific original purpose then it would imply
                                                                                       -
  no change of user within the meaning of the statute. If by custom or
F convention or on the finding of the Court it could be held that the
                                                                                __l~
  added use of the premises was apcillary to the main original purpose
  then in the eye of law it would be deemed to have been within the
  terms of the original lease. It was further held that both on principle
  and on binding precedent it emerged that the specified original pur-
  pose could not be, according to the Full Bench, extended by adding to
G it any and every purpose thereto, and the same must be confined
  within the limitation of being either a part or parcel of, or ancillary to,     ~
  the original purpose. There the Court was concerned with section
  13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act which is an identical provision as the present
  one. So far as the High Court held in that case that allied business
  would not amount to change of user but for a business which is not
H allied for the business for which it was let out would amount to change
                 MOHAN LAL v. JAi BHAGWAN [MUKHARJI. J.]                  349

    of user come within the mischief of clause (b) of sectiion 13(2)(ii) of
                                                                                 A
    the Act, the same must be read with reservation.

          Our attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in Maharaj
    Kishan Kesar v. Milkha Singh and others, (Civil Appeal No. 1086 of
     1964 decided on 10th of November, 1965. That was a decision under
    the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. There on the facts         B
    the Court found that selling petrol was an allied business of the work-
    shop and as such it is a part of the business. The Court held that there


-   is no evidence to show that in the trade a petrol pump is not regarded
    as a part of motor workshop business. The sale of petrol is an allied
    business and would not amount to conversion to a different business or
    change of user. There is nothing in the said decision which would give
                                                                                 c
    any assistance to the respondent in this case. The business purposes
    must be adjudged in the light of the purposes of the Rent Act in
    question which is to control the eviction of tenants therefrom. In the
    expanding concept of business now-a-days and the growing concept of
    departmental stores, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that
    there was any change· of user in the facts of this case which would          D
    attract.the mischief of the provisions of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act.
    The building was rented for purpose of carrying .on a business, using it
    for another business, it will not in any way impair the utility or damage
    the building and this business can tie conveniently carried on in the
    said premises. There was no nuisance created.
                                                                                 E
          Our attention was drawn to the observations of Lord Diplock in
    Duport Steels Ltd. and others v. Sirs and others, [1980) 1 All.E.R. 529
-   at 541. That was a decision in respect of the Trade Disputes Act 1906.
    Lord Diplock said:

                 "My Lords, at a time when more and more cases involving F
                 the application of legislation which gives effect to policies
                 that are the subject of bitter public and parliamentary con-

-                troversy, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the
               . British Constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly ·
                 based on the separation of powers.: Parliament makes the
                 laws, the judiciary interpret them."·Wben Parliament legis- G
                 !ates to remedy what the majority of its members at the
                 time perceive to be a defect or a lacuna in the existing law
                 (whether it be the written law enacted by existing statutes
                 or the unwritten common law as it-has been expounded by
                 the judges in decided cases), the 'role of the judiciary is
                 confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament H
    350                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A              has approved as expressing its intention what that intention
               was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the
               statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the
               judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing
               to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves
               consider that the consequences of doing so would be inex-
B
               pedient, or even unjust or immoral. In controversial mat-
               ters such as are involved in industrial relations there is
               room for differences of opinion as to what is expedient,
               what is just and what is morally justifiable. Under our con-
               stitution it is Parliament's opinion on these matters that is    -
               paramount."
c
        While respectfully agreeing with the said observations of Lord
  Diplock, that the Parliament legislates to remedy and the judiciary
  interpret them, it has to be borne in mind that the meaning of the
  expression must be found in the felt necessities of time. In the back-
D ground of the purpose of rent legislation and inasmuch as in the instant
  case the change of the user would not cause any mischief or detriment
                                                                                    •
  or impairment of the shop in question and in one sense could be called
  an allied business in the expanding concept of departmental stores, in·
  our opinion, in this case there was no change of user which attract the
  mischief of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. The High Court, therefore,
  was in error.
E
          In that view of the matter this appeal is allowed· and the order of
    eviction is set aside. The parties will pay and bear their own costs.

    N.V.K.                                                  Appeal allowed.
                                                                                -