Gokal Chand Mittal, J. - (1.) THE landlord came to court for seeking ejectment of the tenant and one of the grounds was that the tenant was allowed to carry on the business of Scientific goods in the shop in dispute but has now installed a flour and oil mill and thereby has changed the user of the premises and thus is liable to be ejected under Section 13(ii)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act), while the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition, the lower appellate Court has ordered for eviction. Para 14 of the order of the Appellate Authority was referred to in support of the eviction order. The tenant's own statement was that he had taken the shop in dispute for Dukandari According to his statement, initially he had the business of foodgrain then of sale of wooden goods and then sale of scientific goods and in the year 1975 he installed a Chakki and Kohlu, i e.. flour and oil mill. Sale of any commodity is permissible in a shop but installing of flour and oil mill is not a work which is normally to be done in the shop and unless permission in writing is taken from the landlord, the tenant is not entitled to use the shop for installing flour and oil mill, may be of a small scale.
(2.) ON similar facts, J. V. Gupta, J. in Jagdish Lal v. Hans Raj, (1985) 88 P.L.R. 279, ordered the eviction of a tenant on the ground of change of user. Shri H.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, appearing for the tenant has invited my attention at Ram Dayal v. Ram Charan Dass, (1984) 86 P.L.R. 606, Parmod Kumar v. Bhagwat Sarup : (1985) 88 P.L.R. 157, decisions of this Court and Ram Saroop v. M/s Janki Dass Jai Kumar, 1976 R.C.R. 576, a decision of the Delhi High Court. The first two decisions of this Court are distinguishable because in these cases one type of sale or the other was carried on when there was no specific purpose of the sale mentioned in the rent notes. None of those cases relates to change of user from sale of goods to manufacture of goods like flour and oil. However, Ram Saroop's case (supra) is somewhat on identical facts, but that relates to Transfer of Property Act and not to Rent Control cases, now in force in different States. I prefer to follow the decision of J.V. Gupta, J. in Jagdish Lal's case case (Supra).
(3.) IT was then argued that against the decision of J.V. Gupta, J. in Jagdish Lal's case (supra) special leave petition has been admitted by the Supreme Court. Mere admission of a case does not mean that the judgment of this Court is not correct. The consistent view of this Court is that if instead of selling goods in a shop manufacturing work is started without the written consent of the landlord, it will amount to change of user Hence, there is no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed.;