- (1.) The petitioner took the premises in dispute on rent on July 22, 1960. The material portion of the rent note when translated Into English reads as under :- "Rs. 40 per month have been fixed as rent for the premises which include a place in which four power-looms; two of the capacity of 36 inches, and two of the capacity of 40 inches each shall be installable; and a room for use as office and a barsati which will be used jointly with the landlord. Rs. 20/- per month as rent of motor shaft ball bearings extra; total Rs. 60/- per month with effect from July 1, 1960 to September 30, 1960 for a period of three months for the business of power-looms......... It has been agreed upon that the rent will be paid in advance every month. In case of non-payment of rent, I shall be liable to ejected."
(2.) The premises in dispute were acquired by the present respondents under sale-deed dated February 21, 1968. They filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the following grounds :- 1. That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from September 21, 1968. 2. That the respondent has ceased to occupy the rented portion of the building for a continuous period of more than four months without any reasonable cause. 3. That the respondent used the room marked EFGH rented to him for his office as a factory and as such used it for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out to him, and 4. That the respondent has locked the barsari marked ABCD and had used it in such a way as is likely to impair materially the value or utility of that barsati. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to eviction on the grounds alleged, if the same are proved? 2. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? 3. Whether any notice under section 106. Transfer of Property Act was essential before the filing of the application ? On issue No. 1 it was held that the petitioner by installing handlooms in the main building as also in the barsati and the office had used the building for a purpose other than the one for which it had been let out. On issue No. 2 it was found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. On issue No. 3 it was found that since the tenancy was statutory, no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was required to be given to the petitioner. On these findings, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana. He has come up in revision before me.
(3.) Mr. I. K. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner, has read out the rent note before me and has submitted that insignificant alteration in the use of the premises would not entitle the respondent to claim eviction of the petitioner. He has argued that the main room in which the power-looms were installed could not be regarded for being used for another purpose merely because some hand-looms bad also been installed therein. The same plea has been raised regarding the room meant for being used as an office. In support of the submissions made, he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported as Telu Ram v. Om Parkash Garg, 1971 73 PunLR 1. In that case, the learned Judges drew the following conclusions : "From the provisions of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act and the various decisions discussed above, the position emerges out like this : (a) That if only a small portion of a building is used for a purpose other than the one for which it was originally let, that, by itself, may not render the tenant liable to be evicted under the above-mentioned clause. In any case, a tenant would not be so liable if the purpose complained of can be said to be 'part of the purpose for which the premises were originally let'; (b) That if the result of the use of even a small portion of a building is such that the category of the premises is changed from residential, non-residential and scheduled, and it becomes a category different from the one for which the same had been let, the clause would be attracted; (c) That if a substantial part of the demised premises is being utilised for a purpose other than the one for which the same had been leased, the tenant would render himself liable to eviction; whether in a particular case, there has been a substantial conversion of the premises for a purpose different from the one for which the same were let, would be a question of fact to be determined in each particular case; (d) That in determining whether the change has been substantial or not inter alia it will be necessary for the Court to direct itself to the question whether at the time of letting of (he premises the landlord would or would not have agreed to the premises being used for the changed purpose; and (e) that if the entire premises are used for a purpose other than the one for which the same were originally let, the clause would be attracted." At the very outset I may observe that the aforementioned principles were enunciated regarding the building which are exclusively to be utilised by the lessee. These principles would have limited application to a case where the landlord was also using part of the building alongwith the lessee. In the latter situation it would have to be seen whether the portion of the building of which exclusive possession is given to the tenant was being used for the same purpose for which it was let or for a purpose ancillary thereto. The portion of the building which is to be commonly used by the tenant and the landlord must be used strictly in accordance with the terms of the lease. If the user of such portion is violated or altered without the consent of the landlord, the tenant would be liable to be ejected.;