J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE landlord -Petitioner has filed this petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullunder, dated 11th February 1975, where by the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant has been set aside.
(2.) SHRIMATI Raj Rani, Landlord -Petitioner, filed the present application for ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute, interalia, on the grounds that the premises in dispute has been used by the tenant for the purpose other than that for which it was leased secondly for her personal requirement. It was pleaded in the application by her that the premises in dispute, which has been described as Taur along with a Chhapar and Kotha thereon was given on rent for residential purposes ; whereas the tenant has started using it as a Diary Farm without the consent of the landlord and thus he has changed the user of the premises which has made him liable for ejectment. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these facts were controverted and it was pleaded that the premises had been let out for running a dairy and are being used for that purpose from the very beginning. It was further pleaded that the landlord does not require the premises for his personal occupation. On the question of change of user, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant took the premises in dispute for residential purposes and has now changed the same into a dairy farm, and was thus liable to ejectment on that ground. On the ground of personal necessity also he came to the conclusion that the landlord has succeeded in proving that she bonafide needs he premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on both the counts. As regards the change of user, it has been found that the property in dispute was not let out for residential purposes, but was taken by the tenant for running a dairy. On the question of personal requirement, the view taken is that the premises cannot got vacated for this purpose because she does not intend to run any business. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that from the evidence on the record it has been proved that the premises in dispute were given for residential purposes and not for running the dairy business. However, I do not find any force in this contention. In rent -note, Exhibit PA, no purpose has been given for which the budding was let out. From the oral evidence led by the parties, the Appellate Authority has come to a firm finding that it was not let out for running a dairy. Since this finding has been arrived at after the appreciation of the oral evidence, the same cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the landlord is not entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of change of user of the building in dispute.;