- (1.) THE present petition is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority against the petitioner-tenant whereby his eviction has been ordered from the premises in dispute on the ground that he had used the shop in question for a purpose other than the one for which it had been let out to him. The facts of the case are as under:
(2.) THE landlord-respondent Shashi Bhushan filed an application in the year 1971 for eviction of the petitioner, on various ground. On a consideration of the eviction application as also the reply filed by the tenant-petitioner, the following issues were framed. 1. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the shop in dispute to other respondent? OPA. 2. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the applicant and respondent No. 1 ? OPA. 3. Whether the value of the shop has been materially impaired? OPA. 4. Whether the tender of the amount is full and legal ? OPR. 5. Whether respondent is not liable to pay the house tax except Rs. 265/- for six months which includes the house tax? OPR. After the recording of the evidence on the above quoted issues, the respondent moved an application for the amendment of the eviction application and on the same being allowed, an additional issue 5-A was framed which is also re-produced below: 5-A. Whether respondent No. 1 has used the shop in dispute for purpose other than one for which it was let out ? OPA.
(3.) THE Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority decided all the issues No. 1 to 5 in favour of the petitioner but issue No. 5-A was decided in favour of the respondent-landlord with the result that the eviction of the petitioner has been ordered. The petitioner-tenant has thereafter come up to this Court in the present proceedings.;