- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Sri Virendra Kumar Agrawal (the petitioner) is a tenant of the premises in dispute. It was let out by the father of Sri Bharat Lal Barnwal (the contesting respondent) prior to 1971. The father of contesting respondent died in the year 1978. Thereafter there was partition in the building, where premises in dispute lay, in the year 1981 and the premises came to the share of the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent filed a suit after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner after giving 30 days notice on the ground that the petitioner has started using the premises in dispute for the purposes other than for which it was let out to him.
(2.) THE trial Court by its judgment dated 28-9-1988 held that the premises was being used, for selling books and copies; and stitching machine and rolling machine were being operated for making copies, file covers and boxes for sweet-meat during the life time of the father of the contesting respondent without any objec tion. THE trial Court further held that the petitioner has also installed a printing machine in 1982 but this does not amount to change of user and dismissed the suit. The contesting respondent filed a revision. The revisional Court, by its order dated 10th December, 1991, held that in stalling printing machine is a change of user and the petitioner was liable for evic tion in view of Section 20 (2) (d) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act ). Hence the present writ petition by the tenant. Ave heard counsels for the par ties. The only question involved in this writ petition is, whether putting up of printing machine in 1982 is a change of user or not.
(3.) THE trial Court had held that the petitioner was already operating his stitch ing machine, rolling machine for making copies, file cover, boxes of sweet meats apart from selling books and copies during the life time of the father of the contesting respondent without any objection. THE trial Court, from this conduct, inferred that the premises were let out for operat ing stitching machine, rolling machine for making copies, file cover, boxes of sweat meats apart from selling books and copies. THEre is no illegality in this finding. This was a finding of fact, which could not be interfered with by the revisional Court and as a matter of this was not set aside by the revisional Court. THE trial Court had fur ther held that the petitioner has also in stalled a printing machine and also started printing works but this did not amount to change in purpose. It is with this reasoning that the revisional Court did not agree. According to the revisional Court it amounts to change in purpose. Let's con sider if this is correct. The Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, 1984 (1) ARC 484; has approved the full Bench decision of Pun jab High Court where the full Bench had held that any purpose which is a part or ancillary or allied to earlier purpose will not amount to change of user. The Supreme Court in Gurdial Baira v. Raj Kumar Jain, 1988 (2) ARC 397, held that where the shop was let out for repairing of cycles and rickshaws and was also used for selling of television sets, then it will not amount to change of user. Here, the premises in dispute was already used for operating stitching machine, rolling machine for making copies, file cover, boxes of sweet meals; the printing machine is an allied purpose. It cannot be said that petitioner has changed the purpose for which it was let out to him. The revisional Court wrongly allowed the revision.;