D.K.Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS petition for revision is directed against the concurrent decisions of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller rejecting the landlord's application for eviction of the tenant.
(2.) THE ground on which eviction was sought was that the tenant was using the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were leased. According to the application of the landlord, the premises were rented out for purely residential purpose. The stand taken by the tenant was - The premises in dispute were never rented out for re -idential purposes only but these could be used by the Respondent for any purpose. The Respondent took it on rent more than 30 years ago and since then he is residing here as well as doing his business on small -scale and tying cattle...... Evidence was examined by the landlord as well as the tenant and after considering the evidence the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the Respondent has not started using the building for other purposes than those for which it was rented out to him" The finding of the appellate authority in appeal is that "the premises had been used for the same purpose ever since the beginning. The conclusion of the Rent Controller on this point is therefore quite correct " Thus it will appear that there is a concurrent finding by the Rent Controller as well as by the appellate authority that the premises had been used fur the same purpose for which they were rented out initially, The evidence discloses that the renting out was before the Act came into force i.e. in 1947. It is also significant that at no point of time till the present petition was lodged, any protest was made that the premises had been used for a purpose other than that for which they were rented out. No rent note has been produced. Therefore, it appears to me that it cannot be said that the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority is, in any way, erroneous or improper. Mr. Ajit Singh Sarhadi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has, vehemently contended, replying upon the decision of Dua. J. in Ideal Charitable Hospital Trust v. Madan Gopal, (1966) 68 PLR 644, that according to the admission of the tenant the premises had been rented out both for a residential purpose and a commercial purpose. There being total cessation of the residential purpose the case does fall within the ambit of section ]3(2)(h)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. So far as this provision is concerned, it will only apply if the conversion of user is after the Coming into force of the Act. There is no evidence - that the alleged conversion was not in existence prior to the coming into force of the Act. Therefore it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel based on the case of Ideal Charitable Hospital Trust.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded, above, this petition fails and is dis -missed, but there will be no order as to costs.;