Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, challenging the order of his ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the tenant has changed the use of the demised shop, without the consent of the landlady.
(2.) IN this case, in the year 1978, the instant ejectment application was filed by the respondent -landlady for ejectment of the petitioner -tenant from the shop in question, which is situated in Ludhiana and which was on monthly rent of Rs. 7/ - on the following three grounds : - a) That the respondent neither paid nor tendered the rent since 01.05.1975; b) That the tenant has changed the use of the shop from hosiery business to manufacturing and selling trunk, boxes and tumblers etc. without the written consent of the landlady; ' c) That the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the shop in question by constructing a wooden parchhati in the shop. The petitioner -tenant contested the ejectment application. The claimed arrears of rent along with interest and costs, as assessed by the Rent Controller, was tendered on the first date of hearing. Regarding the change of user, It was pleaded that the shop was taken for running the commercial activities and since the inception of the tenancy, those commercial activities were being carried in the shop, therefore, the tenant never changed the use of the demised premises. Regarding the impairing of the value and utility, it was stated that no wooden parchhati, as alleged by the landlady, was constructed by the tenant and the same was existing since the inception of the tenancy.
(3.) THE Rent Controller held that since a valid tender of arrears of rent was made by the tenant on the first date of hearing, therefore, tenant was not liable to be ejected on the said ground. Regarding the impairing of the value and utility of the demised premises, it was held that the tenant has not impaired the value and utility of the shop in dispute, as alleged by the landlady. However, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner -tenant on the ground of change of user, while holding that from the date of inception of the tenancy, the tenant was doing the hosiery business in the demised shop, but in the year 1978, he had started the manufacturing and sale of trunks, iron boxes and buckets etc. in the demised premises, without the written consent of the landlady. It was held that the manufacturing and sale of trunks, iron boxes and buckets etc. in the demised premises from the hosiery, business, amounts to change of use of the demised premises, which is not permissible without the written consent of the landlady.;