Case: The Goa Urban Coop Bank Ltd Vs. Noor Mohd. Sheikh Mussa

2. Under an indenture of lease, Mussa Zaik Usmanrd) let out a portion admeasuring 47.04 sq. meters on the ground floor of Aaisha TheatreRoad, Ponda, to the Goa Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. the appellant herein, for a term of two years extendable by mutual consent at a rent of Rs.200/per month (hereinafter referred to as a demised premises). Clause (6) of the leaseThe Lessee shall utilise the premises for the functioning of its office.The appellant shifted its office from the premises at Aaisha Theatre to the Navelkar building at the distance of about 100 meters and began to use the demised premises for keeping records. Mussa Zaik Usman on 15.5.1982 addressed a letter to the appellant that as it had shifted its Branch in the newly constructed Municipality building Ponda and the premises were lying closed and presumably were being used as a godown, he called upon the appellant to vacate the demised premises. On 29.10.1984 the landlord wrote another letter to the appellant to vacate the premises and also stated therein that they would offer alternate premises for use as a godown for which purpose the demised premises were being used by the tenant. The response to the above letter, the Bank wrote to the landlord that they were willing to vacate the premises occupied by them provided the landlords offered them alternate space to store the records and furnish a declaration that the premises which were being vacated would be used by them for their bona fide personal use. The appellant gave certain specifications as per which the building was to be made ready for keeping the records of the bank.4. On 17.10.1986 the General Manager/Secretary of the appellant addressed a letter to the landlords that we are thinking of leaving your premises in the Aaisha Theatre insisting for the alternative premises suggested by you in the Godown on the back side of your house". The final decision was to be taken as soon as the premises which were being constructed by the appellant were complete and which were expected to be completed latest by 31.3.1987. It was further stated that in the past the Bank had been releasing the premises under its tenancy forof the landlord after obtaining declaration on oath. On 9.7.1987 the appellant wrote another letter in which it wasare pleased to inform you that we have considered your request for vacating the premises in Aaisha Theatre Building favourably as the same are required by you for self occupation. After considering your offer of alternative premises we have finally decided not to accept the same as they are not suitable for ourlandlords by their letter dated 17.3.1988 in response to the letter dated 9.7.1987 gave a declaration on a stamp paper duly authenticated by a Notary at Ponda. On 4.6.1988 the Bank informed the landlords that it was not willing to vacate the premises. On 17.4.1987 Mussa Zaik Usman expired.5. On 26.2.1992 the(hereinafter referred to as the respondents) being the successors of Mussa Zaik Usman, put the Bank on notice determining the lease and called upon the Bank to vacate the premises. The Bank sent a reply to the notice stating that as the workload had increased, the Bank had taken additional premises for running of the Branch and in the suit premises records and other materials connected with the Ponda Branch were stored.6. The respondents thereafter on 11.2.1993 filed an eviction petition seeking the eviction of the Bank under Section 22(2)(b)(ii) and Section 23(b) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (for short the Act) being Rent Case No. 2 of 1993 before the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda seeking the eviction of the appellant Eviction was sought on the followingThe premises were not being used for the purposes for which they were let;ii) The premises were lying closed for over four months before the institution of the proceedings;iii) The premises were required by the landlords for their bona fide personal use.The appellant filed its written statement denying the contentions raised in the petition. The parties examined their respective witnesses and led the evidence. Both the parties examined four witnesses each.8. Rent Controller held that the appellant had changed the use of the premises. The premises were being used a godown and not as an office, the purpose for which the premises were let out. The premises were lying closed from 1982 to 1993 and therefore the landlord had ceased to occupy them for more than 4 months before the institution of the eviction proceedings. The eviction was ordered two grounds. The third ground of bonafide need for personal use was rejected. The Administrative Tribunal set up under the Act set aside the judgment of the Rent Controller. The respondents thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court reversed the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal and restored the judgment of the Rent Controller. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge.9. Record ex facie discloses concurrent findings on the respect of the purpose for which the premises were let out, i.e. the suit premises were let our for the purpose of office establishment of the appellant and regarding shifting of such office establishment of the appellant from the suit premises to Narvekar Building from the year 1982. There are also concurrent findings that the suit premises were being used by the appellant as a godown during the period from 1982 to 1988. The Tribunal refused to order the eviction of the appellant from the suit premises solely on the ground that since June, 1988 the suit premises were being used for banking activities and therefore there was no change in the use of the building of the suit premises as on the date of the filing of the eviction petition. High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal and held that once the ground for eviction on account of a change of use is proved then the right of the landlord to get it vacated cannot be taken away merely on account of subsequent act on the part of the tenant in restoring the use of the building for the the purpose for which it was originally let out. On facts also the High Court set aside the findings of the Tribunal being perverse based on misreading of the evidence that user of the building was restored for the original purpose for which it was let out after June, 1988. The High Court concluded that the use of the building as a godown had continued upto the date of filing of the eviction petition. The High Court further noted that the correspondence between the parties disclosed that the appellant had admitted that after the shifting of its office to Narvekar building the suit premises were being required for storing its record and at one point of time the appellant had planned to shift such records to their own building which was under construction at Porvorim. High Court took judicial notice of the fact that Porvorim is situated in the Taluka of Bardez whereas the town of Ponda, where the suit premises are situated, is miles away from Porvorium. It was held that if the appellant could operate its Ponda Branch in Narvekar Building while keeping the records at Porvorium, certainly it could not be said that the records kept in the suit premises were ofuse of the appellant bank. High Court concluded that the records kept in the suit premises did not constitute Banking activities of the appellant.

Reasoning:
14. In the present case the building was let out for use as an office as is clear from clause (6) of the lease deed. The words office and godown have not been defined in the fact. If the demised premises were let out as office in the lease deed, it would be presumed that the parties have used the word office in the sense in which it is understood in common parlance or as given in the dictionary. Similar would be the situation for the expression godown. The meaning assigned to word godown would be the one as understood in common parlance or as indicated in the dictionary.Learned counsel appearing for the parties after due verification have confirmed that this judgment holds the field. No decision taking a contrary view was cited before us. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in thishave admitted that they have started using the building as a godown and the High Court has concluded that the suit premises were used as a godown after the shifting of banking activities of the appellant to Narevekar Building in the year 1982 and continued to be so used till the date of filing the eviction petition in the year 1992. Considering that the suit premises were let out for office use, mere storage of the books of accounts would not amount to use of premises for office purposes especially when the appellant has admitted that it has shifted its business of banking to Narvekar Building. When the building is let out as an office then the same can be used only as an office and not as a godown where the goods are stored and that would tantamount to change ofappellant has not produced any evidence on this aspect. Respondents in their counter affidavit in the special leave petition have categorically stated in para 7 that the Bank does not even have the required permission from the Reserve Bank of India to carry on any banking activity in the suit premises". This assertion has not been controverted by the appellant in its rejoinder. The building was taken on rent for use as an office in which the appellant started transacting its banking activities and continued to do so till it shifted its banking activities in the view building at Narvekar Building. The suit premises ceased to be occupied as an office and were being used as a godown, which was a different purpose then the one identified in the lease deed.29. The story put forth by the Bank that it had restored its banking activities in the suit premises by carrying on pigmy bank accounts and taking of electrical bills since 1988 has rightly been discarded by the High Court. Even if it is so assumed for the sake of argument, even then the appellant has failed to show that it had a valid permission for carrying on its banking activities at the suit premises. Appellant had already shifted its branch office for the banking activities to Narvekar Building and it has failed to show that it had the necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India to carry on with its banking activities at the suit premises as well. No other point was urged.30. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited certain judgments to show that change of business in a shop from one trade to another does not amount to change of user. These judgments are not relevant for determining the controversy on the point under consideration. In all these cases the premises were let out for use as a shop for a specified trade such as cloth or cycle repairs etc. The tenant changed his trade and started using the shop for a different trade like dry cleaning or some other such trade. This Court held that change of trade may not amount to change of use of premises as the shop continued to be used as a shop. In our opinion, the shifting of the activities from office purpose to godown purpose is a change of use of premises. It is not shifting of the business from one trade to another trade.