In Brief
A landlord sought eviction of tenants from a commercial property originally leased for a saw mill but later used for manufacturing grills. The tenant's rental arrears had been paid, and the lease contained no express restriction on the type of business conducted. The High Court and lower courts had rejected the eviction petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that absent a negative covenant explicitly restricting business use, a change from one business activity to another does not constitute grounds for eviction under the Haryana Urban Rent Control Act. The tenant had been granted liberty to conduct any business on the premises.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.