Tenant Cannot Turn Residential Portion of SCF into Commercial Workshop Without Permission: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction

“Section 11 Clearly Prohibits Conversion of Purpose Without Permission of Rent Controller”, In a significant ruling concerning misuse of Shop-cum-Flat (SCF) premises in Chandigarh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an eviction order, holding that use of a residential portion for commercial activity without permission violates Section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Justice Sudepti Sharma affirming the Appellate Authority’s order directing eviction of the tenant from the first-floor portion of an SCF on the ground of change of user and misuse.

The Court held that conversion of the residential portion of a Shop-cum-Flat into a commercial tailoring workshop without the Rent Controller’s permission was impermissible and justified eviction.

The dispute arose from SCF No. 25, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh. The respondents-landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a store/room situated on the backside of the first floor of the SCF.

Originally, the tenant had been inducted in the ground-floor portion for commercial purposes under a Rent Note dated 01.10.1993. In 2003, at the tenant’s request, the premises was shifted to the first and second floor backside portion, allegedly for store purposes.

The landlords contended that:

"the demised premises was let out for storing tailoring materials, whereas petitioner has opened a Tailor Shop, thus, not permissible as per Bye-Laws framed under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act."

They further alleged that misuse could expose the property to resumption proceedings by the Estate Office.

The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on 13.05.2015, holding that the landlords had failed to prove misuse or produce evidence from the Estate Office. However, the Appellate Authority reversed this finding on 24.11.2015 and ordered eviction, leading to the present revision.

Division Bench Settles SCF Classification in Chandigarh

During the pendency of the revision, a legal question was referred to a Division Bench:

“Whether in the urban area of U.T., Chandigarh, the entire Shop-cum-Flat is to be treated as commercial or in a given case, First & Second Floor thereof could be termed as residential building for the purpose of eviction under the Act of 1949?”

The Division Bench, relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Rakesh Vij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi (2005), held that after the 1982 Chandigarh Amendment, an SCF in Chandigarh is to be treated as a non-residential building and ejectment can be sought on bona fide grounds in both residential and non-residential buildings.

Thus, the issue stood settled against the tenant.

The central issue before the Court was whether the tenant had changed the user of the premises in violation of Section 11 of the 1949 Act.

Justice Sudepti Sharma observed that:

“Section 11 clearly prohibits a landlord or a tenant to convert the purpose of tenancy without permission of the Rent Controller.”

The Court noted that the first-floor portion was residential in nature and had been given for store purposes. However, the tenant was running a tailoring business from the said residential portion.

The Appellate Authority had concluded that:

“both the parties did not take any permission from Rent controller for carrying on commercial activity in the residential portion.”

The High Court found no perversity in this appreciation of evidence.

Estate Office Notices Strengthened Case of Misuse

A crucial aspect of the judgment was the reliance on show cause notices issued by the Estate Officer (UT Chandigarh) for misuse of the SCF.

One such notice recorded:

“the aforesaid site (SCF No. 25, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh) can only be used for the purpose mentioned in the allotment letter… The owner may apply for conversion from SCF to SCB to SCS, but the owner/allottee has not applied for conversion and in the absence of conversion… he is misusing the site through tenant.”

The Court observed that:

“A bare reading of the above referred to notice shows that there is misuse of the property and the landlord should not suffer because of the misuse of the premises by the tenant.”

This finding was significant as it recognised that municipal or Estate Office action for misuse can substantiate grounds for eviction under rent control law.

Precedents Distinguished

The tenant relied upon Shabir Ahmad v. Sham Lal and Rakesh Vij to argue that eviction was not maintainable. However, the Court distinguished these authorities on facts.

On the other hand, the Court found support in Nand Kishore v. Yashpal Singh (2009), where the Supreme Court upheld eviction when residential premises were used for commercial purposes.

The High Court concluded that the judgments cited by the tenant “would be of no help” in view of the specific factual matrix.

No Interference in Revision Jurisdiction

The Court reiterated that in revision jurisdiction, interference is warranted only in cases of illegality or perversity. Since the Appellate Authority had properly reappreciated evidence and recorded findings on change of user, no interference was called for.

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, and the eviction order dated 24.11.2015 was upheld.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

The judgment reinforces that unauthorized commercial use of residential portions in Chandigarh SCFs invites eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It underscores that Section 11 prohibits change of user without prior permission of the Rent Controller and that landlords cannot be penalised for tenants’ misuse.

By affirming the Appellate Authority’s findings, the High Court has strengthened enforcement against misuse of SCF premises and clarified that Estate Office notices can substantiate grounds of eviction.

Date of Decision: 05 February 2026