MOHAN LAL Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by unsuccessful landlord who lost his case of seeking eviction of the respondents on two grounds, namely change of user and the demised property having been sublet to respondents 5 to 7. Learned Rent Controller, Phul vide its order dated 7.11.1985 rejected the evidence led by the petitioner herein in support of the twin grounds of seeking eviction, as mentioned above, and the appeal preferred against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed by learned appellate authority vide its order dated 5.6.1986.

(2.) Learned counsel representing the petitioner at this stage, has pressed only one ground of eviction, namely the original tenants having sublet the demised premises to respondents 5 to 7. This aspect of the case has been dealt with by learned Appellate Authority in minute details and a firm finding of fact has been recorded that after the demise of Mohinder Sain Verma, one of the original tenants, his son Dalip Kumar Verma, who might have been practicing as a Lawyer earlier was carrying on the same very business that had been carried out by his father and other partner, namely, Dev Raj and thereafter business of selling and buying of sewing machines was carried on in the premises in dispute. This finding is based upon number of documents and evidence of purchase of cloth by Dalip Kumar to show that this business was being carried on even earlier. It rather appears to the Court that respondents 5 to 7 were tailors and either during the life time of Mohinder Sain Verma or after his demised might have been squat-tering inside or outside the shop or on a Chabutra located very close to the shop to cater to the needs of the customers who might be purchasing cloth from the demised shop. It is significant to mention that AW3-Milkhy Ram, who appeared in support of the landlord stated that Nirmal Singh and Mohan Singh, who are respondents 6 and 7 sit outside the shop. There is no scope whatsoever to interfere with the finding of fact as recorded by learned Rent Controller and by the appellate authority on the issue of subletting of the demised premises to respondents No. 5 to 7.

(3.) Even though earlier, learned counsel had not raised arguments on the change of user, but after a part of the order was dictated pertaining to subletting, counsel stated that landlord had a good case even on the ground of change of user. Learned counsel was heard on this ground for eviction as well. However, after examining the evidence brought on record of the case a finding was recorded by Rent Controller and the appellate authority, that there is no substance in the ground of change of user. Assuming that the plea of the landlord regarding shifting of business from selling and buying of cloth to selling and buying of sewing machines is factually correct, the same in the context of the case, would not amount to change of user as, concededly the purpose of the specific business to be carried out in the demised premises had not been mentioned. There is, indeed, in existence a rent note Ex.A1, dated 12.4.1959. All that has been mentioned therein is that demised shop was being rented out to Dev Raj and Mohinder Sain Verma, the cloth merchants. Description of the tenants as cloth merchants would not provide a clincher that they were to carry on the business of buying and selling of cloth only. That apart, the change of user is not such which may have caused any concern to the landlord as value of the demised premises was not being impaired by simply shifting from cloth business to that of selling sewing machines. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, ('988-1)93 670 (S.C.) held that where a tenant switches over to another business than one for which tenancy had been created and there was no possi-bility of any mischief of detriment to demised premises, the landlord would not be able to seek eviction on the ground of change of user. In the case aforesaid, the tenant had switched over business of Liquor vend to General Merchant. To the same effect the findings of Hon'ble Supremo Court in Rattan Lal v. Asha Rani, 1988 H.R.R. 625, wherein the tenant had shifted the business of grocery to that of selling of books.