- (1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment dated 21.1.1997 passed by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur whereby an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlord was accepted and the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord as also the judgment dated 3.11.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur whereby first appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed.
(2.) Even though eviction of the petitioner was sought on more than one ground, however the only ground which found favour with the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority is that the petitioner had changed the user of the shop in dispute from that of a Medical Practitioner's clinic to a Sports' shop without written consent of the landlord-applicant. A reading of the judgments of the courts below would show that the shop was originally taken on rent prior to the partition of this country by Dr. Kartar Singh who was a Homeopathic Medical Practitioner. He was carrying on medical practice in the said shop. After his death his son Dr. Tarlochan Singh who was also a Homeopathic Medical Practitioner started carrying on practice in the said shop. Dr.Tarlochan Singh expired on 5.4.1991. After the death of Tarlochan Singh, his wife who was arrayed as respondent in the eviction petition, started carrying on the business of selling sports' goods in the said shop. The goods were purchased from K.T.Sports, Gurdaspur and Inderjit Kaur, widow of Tarlochan Singh had, in the first instance, engaged a servant who used to help her in running the business. This continued up to April 1992. Thereafter her son-in-law Nonihal Singh joined the shop after his retirement and started helping her in running the business in the demised premises.
(3.) The Rent Controller has noted that it was not denied even by the witnesses who appeared for the petitioner-tenant being Ajit Kumar RW- 1 and Rakesh Mahajan RW-2 that Dr.Tarlochan Singh was running his medical practice in the said shop and thereafter the business of selling of sports' goods was started in the premises. The facts as stated herein above were also not denied by Nonihal Singh who appeared as RW-3 and who is the son-in-law of Dr.Tarlochan Singh. To similar effect is the statement of Inderjit Kaur herself. On the basis of the aforesaid the Rent Controller recorded the following findings :- "It is in the statement of Nonihal Singh (RW3) that the demised premises alongwith the remaining building was taken on rent by Dr.Kartar Singh, father-in-law of respondent no.1 and the remaining building except the demised premises was vacated by Dr.Kartar Singh before partition of the country when he constructed his own house. Dr.Kartar Singh used to run his clinic in the demised premises and after his death Dr.Tarlochan Singh started his medical practitioner business in the demised premises. It is in his statement that in August, 1991, the respondents started selling the sports goods in the demised premises after the death of Dr. Tarlochan Singh. It is also in the statement of Smt. Inderjit Kaur (RW4) that she has got no knowledge about the homeopathy. Now there is no family member of Dr. Tarlochan Singh, who knows homeopathy. Admittedly, sports goods are being sold in the demised premises under the name and style of Tarlochan Sports and this fact has not been denied by the respondents in the written reply or in evidence. Thus, it is clear change of user by the respondents without written consent of the applicant. Otherwise from the evidence led by the respondents, it is clear that before partition of the country in 1947 Dr. Kartar Singh, father-in-law of respondent no.1 was in occupation of the demised premises as tenant and now the respondents and their predecessors in interests have used the demised premises for more than 50 years as tenants. So, then applicant is entitled to possession of the demised premises for her use and occupation.";