JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) RESPONDENTS filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the Act), for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises, description of which was given in their application. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non- payment of rent, that the shop, in dispute, was required by the respondents for their personal use and also that the petitioner-tenant was guilty of using the shop for the purpose other than the one for which it was rented out to him. Petitioner controverted the averments made by the respondents-landlords. Rent Controller gave opportunity to both of them to lead evidence and on appraisal thereof, ordered ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the shop was required by the respondents for their personal use and also that the petitioner was guilty of change of user, which has resulted into causing nuisance to the respondents. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
(2.) SO far as relationship between the parties is concerned, the same is not in dispute. Appellate authority below on appraisal of evidence, has observed thus :- "10. The second plea taken by the appellant-tenant is that personal necessity of the petitioners of premises in dispute is inot proved, is also untenable. In this regard, a reference may be made to the testimony of one of the petitioners namely Girdhari Lal and corroborated by the testimony of Ashok Kumar-PW2. Both these witnesses stated the area in occupation of the petitioners and their requirement of premises in dispute. Despite lengthy cross-examination, the testimony of either of the witnesses could not be shattered in any way. Then, learned counsel for the appellant-tenant could lnot point out any infirmity in the findings recorded in this regard by the learned Rent Controller while returning findings with regard to personal necessity of petitioners for the premises in dispute. Then, it is not the case of the respondent that besides the premises in dispute, the petitioners are having any other accommodation in their possession or vacated the same during the pendency of the petition. So, the findings recorded in this regard by the learned Rent Controller qua the personal necessity of the petitioners of the premises in dispute are hereby ordered to be affirmed. 11. The petitioners also sought eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the ground of change of user. While returning findings in this regard against the petitioners, learned Rent Controller held that though besides running a clinic, a PCO is being run, but that does not amount to change of user. When it has been admitted by the respondent and his witnesses Prem Singh-DW2 and Mange Ram-DW3 that a PCO is being run in a part of the premises in dispute, then that is a change of user from the original one. Admittedly, the premises in dispute were let out to the appellant- respondent for running a clinic and not for starting a PCO/STD booth. Then, a perusal of the photographs Ex.D3 and Ex.D5 duly proved by DW4- Kuldip Singh shows that in the premises in dispute, a PCO booth is being run and which cannot be said to be an ancillary or a part of the purpose for which the premises in dispute was let lout. Then, there is nothing on the record to show that prior to starting PCO booth, the tenant sought any permission from the petitioners. It has been admitted by the tenant that there are separate telephone connections for his clinic as well as PCO booth and he earns sufficiently. A number of persons visit the PCO booth. Further if the PCO booth was started for the benefit of the patients, then the tenant should have produced some record of his clinic to show as to what he actually earns by that profession. When he is admittedly charging for the services at PCO booth and which is being manned by his other family members, then it means that besides running a clinic, he also started a PCO booth in those premises. So, that certainly, amounts to change of user of the premises in dispute and for which, his eviction can be sought. In cases of Shri Mohan Lal v. Shri Bodh Raj Malhotra, 1973 RCR 678, Parbhu Dial v. Vijay Kumar, 1974 Rent Control Reporter 602, Shiv Narain v. Smt. Khushal Devi, 1971 RCR 258, Thakur Dass Batra and anr. v. Mithan Lal, 1977 Rent Control Reporter 374 and Bishamber Dass Kohli (Dead) by Lrs. v. Smt. Satya Bhalla, 1993(1) RCR(Rent) 259 : 1993(1) LJR 270, it was held that when there is change of user by the tenant without written consent of the landlord, then he is liable to be evicted and in such a situation, the onus shifts upon him. From the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on the file, it is proved that a PCO booth is being run in a part of the premises in dispute that too without written consent of the landlord. So, in such a situation, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the ground of change of user. So, the findings recorded to the contrary by the learned Rent Controller are hereby ordered to be reversed. 12. Lastly, the petitioners sought eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the ground of his being nuisance to them as well as their family and locality. In this regard, besides the testimony of one of the petitioners Girdhari Lal, a reference has been made to the testimony of Ashok Kumar-PW2. Though it is the version of Girdhari Lal-PW1 that the general public visits STD booth in a part of the premises in dispute and which is a nuisance. But except his oral version, there is no other oral or documentary evidence to prove this facts. So, this ground of eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute is no longer available to the petitioners. So, the findings recorded in this regard by the learned Rent Controller, are hereby ordered to be affirmed." This Court feels that the order passed is perfectly justified. It has been proved on record that the respondents-landlords require the shop, in dispute, for their personal use. Petitioner has failed to brought on record that the accommodation with the respondents was sufficient or that they have vacated any other premises in the same locality. It has also come on record that the petitioner is guilty of change of user. Initially, shop was given on rent to run a Clinic. Petitioner put up a PCO/STD booth, being situated on the road, many customers started visiting the same, which has resulted into causing nuisance to the respondents-landlords.
(3.) CONTENTION of counsel for the petitioner that the Courts were wrong in ordering ejectment, as once the shop has been rented out for the commercial purposes, the same would not have been got vacated for any other use. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Attar Singh v. Inder Kumar, 1967 PLR 83. This Court feels that the ratio of judgment, referred to above, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, property, in dispute, was open plot, which was let out for the purpose of business and trade. By taking note of the same, it was held that the tenant is saved from eviction unless the landlord requires the land, in dispute, for the same purpose, for which, it was rented out. In the present case, shop, in dispute, is a part and parcel of residential building. No permission, as is necessary, under Section 11 of the Act, was obtained to convert the same into a commercial building. By taking note of number of family members of the respondents, it was observed by the Courts below that the premises, in dispute, was needed for their personal use. In the alternative, it was also observed that in case, it is not possible to use the shop, for any other purposes than the business, the respondents- landlords had been successful to prove that in that event, the shop, in dispute, is required by them to start business therein. Similarly, ratio of the judgment in State Bank of Patiala v. S. Zulzuaoar Singh Virk and others, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 670 : 2003(3) Latest Judicial Reports 37, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, it has come on record that in the year 1977, original building was demolished and then, it was reconstructed as a commercial building. As discussed earlier, facts of the present case are altogether different, as such, no benefit of ratio of the judgment, in State Bank of Patiala's case (supra) can be given to the petitioner. No case is made out for interference in pure findings of facts, as the counsel for the petitioner has failed to raise any substantial question of law. Revision dismissed.;