Tenants Evicted for Changing Business Use Without Approval, Rules Gujarat HC

2 Apr 2025 6:01 PM - By Vivek G.

The Gujarat High Court recently upheld an eviction order issued by a trial court, ruling that tenants had violated the terms of their rental agreement. The property, originally rented out for a cycle repair business, was later used for selling seat covers and automobile accessories—a clear breach of the rent note.

This case arose when the trial court ruled in favor of the landlord, ordering the tenant’s eviction. The tenant challenged this decision in the appellate court, which overturned the eviction order. However, the landlord took the matter to the high court, which ultimately upheld the trial court’s verdict.

The appellate court had considered the changing market trends and evolving social circumstances over the years. It observed that:

The rental agreement was made 52 to 62 years ago, and society has changed significantly since then.
The use of bicycles has declined, making it impractical for the tenant to continue with the cycle repair business.
The tenant, therefore, shifted to selling seat covers and accessories, an industry more relevant to current times.

Based on these considerations, the appellate court allowed the tenant to continue operating the new business, ruling that the eviction was unjustified.

Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker examined the Rent Note, which explicitly stated that the property was to be used only for cycle repairing work. The court found that the landlord and tenant had clearly agreed on this condition, meaning the tenant had no right to change the business without the landlord’s consent.

The court commissioner’s report provided further evidence that the property was now being used to sell:

Seat covers
Number plates
Automobile accessories

The court also considered the tenant’s oral statements and cross-examination records, which revealed:

"From the oral evidence of the tenant... though the defendants have mentioned that they are still doing business of cycle repairing work, they admit that along with the business of cycle repairing work, they are also doing business of seat cover from the suit premises."

Additionally, the tenant admitted in cross-examination that:

They had been running Noble Seat Covers and Accessories for the past 7 to 8 years.
They never sought permission from the landlord to change the business type.
They had no proof to show that cycle repair work was still being conducted at the premises.

The high court raised a key legal question:

“When the property has been given exclusively for the business of cycle repairing work, just because of the change in the society, can the defendants now start another business which is current in the market and city? Just because now nobody is using a cycle, can the defendants start a new business?"

The landlord, in their plea, stated that:

The property was rented in 1963 exclusively for cycle repair work.
After the original tenant passed away, Defendant No.1 became the tenant.
Defendant No.1 shifted the business to selling seat covers, number plates, and accessories, violating the agreement.
Due to this violation, the landlord sought possession of the property.

After reviewing all evidence, the Gujarat High Court upheld the trial court’s decision and ruled in favor of the landlord. The high court stated:

"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 was change of use by the defendants. The trial court had rightly concluded that the shop was specifically given for cycle repairing work, whereas it was utilized for seat covers and automobile accessories."

It further noted that the appellate court’s findings could not be sustained, as the tenant had clearly violated the rental agreement.

Based on the legal principle that tenants cannot alter the agreed purpose of a rented property without the landlord’s permission, the Gujarat High Court:

Allowed the revision plea filed by the landlord.
Set aside the appellate court’s order.
Upheld the eviction order issued by the trial court.

This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to rental agreements and clarifies that changing market conditions do not justify violating legal contracts.

Case title: IRSHADUNNISHA & ANR. v/s MAKBULHUSEN ABBASALI SAIYED HEIRS OF DECEASED ABBASALI HAJI MURADALI SAIYED & ORS.

Download Judgment

Court Judgement Cycle Repair Business Gujarat High Court Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker