J.V.GUPTA,J. - (1.)THIS is a landlord's petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.
(2.)ACCORDING to the landlord the premises in dispute were let out in the year 1968 on an annual rent of Rs. 550 for running cloth business. Since the tenant was using the demised premises as a coal depot since 1973, he changed the user of the demised premises and was liable to eviction. It was pleaded that he materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by using the same as a coal depot. The other grounds of ejectment were also taken, but were negatived by the Rent Controller. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the tenant, Ram Bhaj, it was pleaded that the premises were let out from the very beginning for running the coal business and, therefore, there was no question of change of user. The allegation that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised building was also denied. The learned Rent Controller found that since the year 1973, when the tenant has taken licence for coal depot, he has changed the user of the demised premises. According to the Rent Controller the premises were let out for running cloth business. It was further found that by using the premises for coal business, the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the user of the shop had been changed. According to the appellate authority, it appears that the property in dispute were originally rented for coal depot. Once it was so held, then the other question that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility by running the coal depot as such did not arise. In view of these findings, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the shop was let out for cloth business, and it was only since the year 1973 when the tenant got licence for a coal depot, he started coal business therein and thus, argued the learned counsel, the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the tenant has changed the user of the demised premises. He also contended that even if we assume that it was given for running the business of coal depot, the building as such was not suitable for carrying on the said business and thus the tenant has impaired its value and utility.

(3.)AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this petition. From the evidence on the record, it has not been proved that the premises were let out for cloth business. Surprisingly enough, the landlord did not come into the witness-box to state the facts. His mukhtiar, Ram Kumar, who appeared as A.W.3, stated that the shop in dispute was not given on rent in his presence. Thus, there was no cogent evidence on the record to prove that it was let out for the cloth business. The mere fact that the tenant got licence for the coal depot in the year 1973 did not mean that he was not doing the coal business earlier. Rather Gardhari Lal, Sub-Inspector, D.F.S.C. Karnal, stated in his cross-examination that even on the application for obtaining the licence in the year 1973, it was written that the party was already a licensee. The tenant has categorically stated that from the very beginning of the tenancy, he was carrying on the coal business. According to him, at that time, no such licence was required for doing the coal business. There is no rebuttal to this evidence. Thus, it has been rightly found by the appellate-authority that the premises were let out for running the coal business and thus there was no question of any change of user.