Ashok Bhan, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed on behalf of the tenant New Bank of India, Barwala, District Hissar (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') which arises out of the following facts : -
(2.) RAJ Kumar and his brother Jagdish Chander, landlord -respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') filed ejectment petition under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the tenant for its eviction from the premises in dispute let out to the tenant in the year 1965 at monthly rent of Rs. 200/ - which was later on raised to Rs. 400/ - in the year 1977, on the following grounds : - i) that the tenant has not paid the tax at the rate of 12 -1/2% on monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - with effect from March 1979 to October 1980; ii) that the tenant has not paid the monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - with tax at the rate of 12 -1/2% with effect from October 1, 1980 till the date of filing of the petition; iii) that the value and utility of the said building has been impaired materially and diminished; iv) that the ground floor of the building was let out for banking purposes and the first floor of the building for the residence of the Branch Manager. The tenant has changed the user of the first floor of the building from residential to non -residential purposes against the terms and conditions; and v) that the act and conduct of the tenant is a nuisance to the neighbourers; In the written statement filed, grounds for ejectment were denied and the rent was admitted to be Rs. 400/ - per month. Regarding grounds of ejectment, it was stated that the tenant was not responsible to pay taxes as the premises in dispute were on rent with it at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - including all types of taxes. Though the liability to pay the taxes was denied arrears of rent were tendered with the taxes keeping their right to recover the demanded taxes. Impairing the value and utility of the building was also denied. Regarding change of user, it was stated that there was no change of user and the building was being used for the purpose for which it was let out to it. On the pleadings of the parties, the followings issues were framed : - i) Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the grounds mentioned in the petition ? OPA. ii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR. iii) Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition? OPR iv) Whether the petition is bad on account of non -joinder and mis -joinder of parties ? OPR v) Whether the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act are not applicable to the premises in dispute as alleged ? OPR vi) Whether the petition is not signed and verified properly and according to law ? OPR vii) Whether the particulars as required under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act and rules framed thereunder have not been furnished as alleged ? OPR. viii) Whether the tender of rent is under protest, If so, its effect ? OP Parties. ix) Relief."
(3.) THE only ground for ejectment which was pressed before the Rent Controller was regarding change of user. Rent Controller found all the issues No. 1 to 8 in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. Before the Appellate Authority findings on issue No. 1 only were challenged. Appellate Authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and maintained the order of ejectment. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has come in revision to this Court.;