Rajendra noth Mittal, J. - (1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by Chhaju Ram, landlord, against the judgment of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Aci'), dated Feb. 7, 1973.
(2.) Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he purchased the shop in dispute from Harish Chander on Aug. 14, 1968. Respondent No. 1, Tulsi Dass, was a tenant in the premises in dispute under Harish Cbander on a rent of Rs. 24/ per mensem. Consequently, he became tenant under him after the purchase of the property in dispute. The petitioner filed the application for ejectment of the shop inter alia on the ground that he had started using it for a purpose other than for which it was let and that he had sublet it in favour of Khan Chand, respondent No. 2, without his consent in writing. Tulsi Dass Contested the application and stated that he was a partner in the firm known as 'Mati Ram Ram Lal', which had been carrying on the business of purchase and sale of cloth at Rewari at the inception of the tenancy in his favour by Harish Chander and that the firm had been using the shop for storing the cloth since then. He denied that the shop had been sublet by him to Khan Chand. Some other pleas were also taken but they are not necessary for the disposal of the present petition, as those were not pressed before the Appellate Authority. The Rent Contralller held that there was no change of user and that the tenants had not ceased to occupy the shop for a continuous period of four months. Consequent^, he dismissed the petition. Chhaju Ram, landlord, went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who affirmed the findings of the Rent Contralller and dismissed the appeal. He has come up in a revision petition against the judgment of the Appellate Authority to this Court.
(3.) The only point urged before me is that respondent No. 1 had been using the shop in dispute for storing the goods and that will amount to change in the user of the property as he had taken the premises for the purposes of running a shop. It is an admitted case of the parties that the sale of clath was not being carried on in the shop in dispute by any member of the firm Mati Lal Ram Lal. Local Commissioner was appointed by the Rent Contralller who inspected the shop on April 8. 19&9. In his report, he has slated that the sale of clath was not conducted in the shop as there was neither a Cash box nor the cash memos nor any of the forms necessary under the Shops Act. There was also no gaddi (seat for the salesman) in the shop. The four was. the roof and the a alas inside the shop were all dust stricken and it appeared that no one had been regularly sitting therein and that it was not being cleaned regularly. About 50-60 than of coarse clath only were living in the shop. The Commissioner also observed that he was of the firm view that the shop in dispute remained closed and not being used for business purposes. The witnesses produced by the petitioner also deposed about the aforesaid facts. After going through the report and the statements of the witnesses, it is clearly established that the premises in dispute were being used as a godown by respondent No. i. This conclusion has rat been seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the respondent The only question that arises for determination is as to whether in the aforesaid circumstances it can be held that there was change of user regarding the shop in dispute. In the rent note, it is mentioned that the premises had been taken as a shop. The word'shop' has not been defined in the Act. In Aiyer's Law Terms and Phrases. Sixth Edition, the 'shop' is described as 'a room or a place or a building where goods are said." This word has been defined in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Vallume was 'a place where a retail trade is carried on.' The definition of word 'Godown' in Aiyer's Law Terms and phrases is *a warehouse'. The learned counsel for the respondent argues that in a shop the goods are stored and said. According to him, in case goods are stored in a shop, it cannot be said that there is a change of user. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the observations in Civil Revision No. 6 8 of 1959 (Kishan Lai Vs. Madan Gopal) decided on Aug. 12. I960, and Civil Revision No. 237 of 1965 (Chhabil Dass v Fateh Chand)2 decided on Nov. 25, 1966. In the latter judgment, Mehar Singh, C J., placed reliance on Kishan LaPs case. No doubt, the observations in the aforesaid cases help the respondent On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Civil Revision No. 645 of 1961 (Balwant Singh Vs. Brij Mohan)2 decided on March (6, 1962 In that case, the shop was let for a factory of handlooms and subsequently the manual power was replaced by the electric power. It was observed by Dulat, J., that while the shop was let, it was mentioned that the purpose of letting was to set up Khaddis or hand looms which was a different kind of activity. Consequently, the learned Judge held that there was a change of user. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to another Civil Revision No. 654 of 1962, (Pandit Ram Swarup Vs. Om Parkash) decided on Sept. 6, 1963, where the tenant was carrying on the business of electric goods and paints. Subsequemly, he abandoned the old business and sated using the premises as a Halwai Shop. Dulat, J., who decided the case held that there was change of user of the property. After perusing the aforesaid judgments, I find that the question invallved in the present case is not free from difficulty. The question is also of such a nature which may very often arise. In the circumstances, it is desirable that the case may be referred to a Division Bench. The papers of this case may be placed before my Lord, the Chief Justice, for appropriate orders. JUDGEMENT OF DIVISION BENCH;