SURINDER SINGH,J. - (1.) BY means of this Revision Petition, Kesar Dass petitioner-landlord seeks to impugn the decision of two Rent Control Authorities in an application for ejectment filed by the petitioner for the eviction of the respondents on the ground of bonafide personal need.
(2.) AS per Sale Deed dated December 13, 1972, the petitioner purchased House No. 3880 Abkari Road, Kacha Bazar, Ambala Cantt. from the previous owner for the purpose of their personal residence. An application under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was filed by the petitioner claiming eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of the bonafide personal requirement of the premises in question. The petition was resisted by the tenant on the sole ground that the premises were never let out to him, nor had they been used for the purpose of residence and that he had been doing dairy business in the same. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence placed on the record, dismissed the ejectment application. The petitioner-landlord filed an appeal which also met the same fate at the hands of the Appellate Authority. Normally the Court of Revision would not interfere in a concurrent finding of Rent Control Authorities below but in the present case after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that these Authorities have misconducted themselves on a vital issue. As such, interference in the revisory jurisdiction is called for. The sole point which has been canvassed before this Court is, as to whether the premises in question had been let out and actually used for a non-residential purpose from the inception of the tenancy. In this behalf, the petitioner produced the original landlord of the premises who deposed that the premises had been let out to the respondent for residential purpose. As against this, the respondent orally deposed that he is running a Boot Polish factory under the name and style of Chowdhary Chemical Works in the house in question and that he had been doing this work in the premises for the last many years. The respondent further produced an official witness with the record to show that Messrs Chowdhary Chemical Works had been registered with the address of House No. 3880 and a Sales Tax Number had also been issued to the respondent. The respondent, however, admitted that he had taken the premises in dispute in the year 1958, whereas the above said registration proved by the official witness, i.e. Labour and Shop Inspector, relates to 1971. Merely because a tenant starts using the demised premises for non-residential purpose without the written consent of the landlord, it cannot be deduced that the premises is not residential. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by both the Rent Control Authorities below. The previous landlord of the premises was the best witness to depose about the purpose for which the premises were leased and there was no occasion to disbelieve the said witness.
(3.) THE Authorities below have misconstrued the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner to show that the respondent along with his mother was residing in the house in dispute as they had been registered as voters with the address of the demised premises. Copies of the entries of the House Tax Assessment Register were also produced with a view to show that the respondent was residing in the said house. These entries relate to the period 1963 to 1966. This being so, the mere fact that the respondent un-authorisedly started using the premises for a non-residential purpose, i.e, for manufacture of booth polish, cannot clothe him with the benefit of his own violation. In view of these circumstances, the findings of the Authorities below on the only issue debated throughout, i.e. Issue No. 2 are reversed and it is held that the demised premises had been leased to the respondent for a residential purpose. The admitted fact that the respondent was using the same for a non-residential purpose makes him liable for eviction. The Revision petition is accepted. The decision of the two Rent Control Authorities below are reversed. The application filed by the petitioner for the eviction of the respondent is allowed and the respondent is ordered to be evicted from the premises. The respondent is, however, permitted to vacate the premises in dispute within one month from today.;