- (1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The petition for eviction had been originally ordered by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed by the tenant was also dismissed. The landlord, who was a charitable trust, was contending that the tenant had changed the user of the demised premises and had caused material impairment of the value and utility of the premises. By his wanton conduct of converting this property into a Bakery, furnaces had been installed and chimney had been erected and by such unauthorized activities, the building itself had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
(2.) The Rent Controller found that the shop had been let out for business in biscuits and toffees but the tenant had converted it into a bakery by construction of bhatties and chimney. The rent note produced Ex.A6 was originally a transaction of letting in favour of the tenant's father on 16.04.1959. The rent note made a reference to the existence of two shops and the tenant had actually displaced one of the pillars that existed between the two shops and had shifted the door way. The alteration of the building itself was without the concurrence of the landlord. An advocate commissioner had been appointed, who returned a report evidencing the existence of the bhatties and the blackening of the walls on account of the smoke. The commissioner had also noticed that the size of the bhatties were large and occupied more than 50% of the shops. The Rent Controller on an overall consideration of the evidence found that the property, who had been let out as mere shops were literally used for manufacturing of biscuits and that amounted to change of user. He also found that the tenant had carried out extensive alterations for the running of business and therefore, those alterations constituted material impairment in the value and utility of the building. The Rent Controller did not, however, accept the contention that the building had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On the two other grounds, which were found as established, the eviction was ordered. The Appellate Court had substantially re-affirmed the decision made by the Rent Controller on appreciation of facts.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant would urge before me that there was no need for a person to have two shops taken on rent unless one shop at lease was only for erection of bhatties for manufacture of biscuits. The bhatties had not been constructed by them but they were always there right from the inception. There was no danger to the building and there was no impairment of the value and utility since chimney had been placed for the smoke to be emitted and the finding rendered by the Court that there had been an impairment in value and utility of the building was not correct. Learned counsel relied on decisions of this Court to the effect that if the rent note did not stipulate any particular mode of user, any alteration or change of business ought not to be a ground for eviction. In Ram Dayal Vs. Ram Charan Dass,1984 HRR 285and Narinder Kumar Vs. Ishar Dass Trehan,1989 HRR 308, the Courts were considering recitals in rent note that did not prescribe any particular mode of user. In both the cases, the Court held that the tenant was entitled to have any other business than the business originally commenced at the time of inception of tenancy. In Ram Kumar and others Vs. Shri Ditt Ram,1992 HRR 98, the Court held that merely because the premise had been described as shop, is not enough to hold that the tenant is guilty of change the user especially when the premise are such which could be used for manufacturing apart from carrying on other business or trade. The Court held that in such a case, the tenant was not liable for eviction. A Full Bench of this Court held in the decision in Sikander Lal Vs. Amrit Lal, 1984 86 PunLR 1 that where the premises originally were leased for the business of handlooms but the tenant later added carding machines which converted cloth into thread, that could not be stated to be any change in user.;