M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Karnal which was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Karnal.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that vide rent note Exhibit A2/4, the premises in dispute were taken by the tenant from the predecessor in-interest of the landlord for one year on a rental of Rs. 11.90 per month inclusive of house tax. After the expiry of the said period, it was stated that the tenant continued as a statutory tenant. On 20-10-1969 the landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant on a variety of grounds but the sole one which survives for consideration in this revision petition is confined to the following ground : "That the premises-in-dispute were let out to the tenant for use as tenant as well as for his office but for the last more than five years the tenant has been using the premises-in-dispute for office only and not for his residence. Therefore he has changed the purpose and user for which it was let out." The Rent Controller recorded a finding that the premises-in-dispute were being used solely for the purposes of office and not for residence, as concededly the tenant bad built a house in Ashok Colony, Karnal where his family members were residing and he too, was living there. That finding was challenged in appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. An attempt was made by the landlord to press into service other grounds of ejectment as well but that proved abortive. Thus the only contention which was urged before the Appellate Authority was that there was complete ouster of one kind of user at the cost of other. The Appellate Authority did find favour with the contention of the landlord and affirmed the view of the Rent Controller.
(3.) Certain facts are patent on the record. They are that the promises-in-dispute are situated in a busy bazar of Karnal The lower portion is constructed as a shop and the upper portion is a chaubara. The lower portion can conveniently be used for office and business purposes and the upper portion as residence. The structure of the building per so does not finally determine the legal user to which it can be put. The property owner is entitled to use his property in the manner in which he likes and he cannot be blamed of conversion of user on the structural aspect of the building unless of course there are some municipal laws so prohibiting. Change of user of premises from residential to non-residential is frowned upon in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, and capable of leading to rights and liabilities but only during the subsistence of a tenant landlord relationship. Once a building has been let out for a particular purpose in view, the structural design of the building cannot interpolate the intention of the parties. It is patent from the rent note that the building was let out for the twin purpose, namely, for residence and business purposes so in extricably mixed that no specific portion was mentioned for residence and the other for business.;