Gujarat High Court upholds tenant's eviction for breach of 'exclusive use clause' of property

The Gujarat High Court has affirmed a trial court's decision to evict tenants who altered the agreed use of a rented property. Originally leased for a cycle repair business, the premises were being utilised for selling seat covers and automobile accessories, Live Law reported. This verdict came after the appellate court had previously overturned the trial court's eviction order. The plaintiffs argued that this constituted a breach of the exclusive use clause in the 'Rent Note'.

The trial court initially ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, citing documentary and oral evidence that demonstrated a change in the property's use. The property had been leased specifically for cycle repair work, as stated in the tenancy agreement. However, the defendants had expanded their business operations to include seat covers and vehicle accessories without the landlord's permission. 

The Gujarat High Court's decision to reinstate the eviction order underlines the importance of adhering to the terms set out in tenancy agreements, Live Law reported.

Justice Sanjeev J Thaker noted that the defendants could not justify the shift in business activities without the property owner's consent. The appellate court had earlier reasoned that societal and economic changes over the 52 to 62-year period warranted a modification in the business type. Nonetheless, the High Court did not agree, stating that this rationale did not excuse a breach of the tenancy agreement. The court's scrutiny revealed no evidence from the defendants to support their continued cycle repair operations.

The ruling reinforces the legal perspective that tenants are bound by the original terms of their rental agreements, regardless of shifts in market dynamics. The plaintiffs had consistently maintained that the premises were explicitly rented for cycle repair purposes since 1963. Following the death of the original tenant, the current tenant, Defendant No.1, expanded the business scope without formal consent, leading to the legal dispute and subsequent eviction process.

The court's conclusion was that "the trial Court, after going through the documentary evidence and the oral evidence, has rightly held that the plaintiffs have proved the fact that there wasa  change of use by the defendants."