- (1.) This is a revision petition filed by the tenant against the decision of the Appellate Authority, who had allowed the landlord's appeal and ordered the tenant-petitioner's ejectment.
(2.) Ram Murti, landlord-respondent, filed an application for ejectment Sher Singh and Jinder Singh inter alia on the ground that Sher Singh bid changed the user of the shop. He is using the shop for the purpose other than for which it had been let out to him. The tenant appeared and contested the allegations made in the ejectment application. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :- (1) Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the grounds mentioned in sub-pares B to D of para No. 2 in the application ? (2) Whether the applicant is estopped from filing this application due to his own act and conduct ? (3) Whether a valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been served upon the respondent ? (4) Relief. The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 against the landlord and issues Nos. 2 and 3 against the respondent. He dismissed the ejectment application. Aggrieved by this order, Ram Miurti, respondent-landlord, filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and held that the shop in dispute had been let out to Sher Singh for the purpose of running a workshop for doing repair work. Instead, Sher Singh, tenant, started manufacturing auto-parts therein and he had thus put the shop to use which was different from the one for which it had been let out to him. He accepted the ejectment application and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner.
(3.) It is not necessary to refer to the other grounds taken in the ejectment application as no finding on them has been given against the tenant-petitioner.;