G.R.MAJITHIA,J - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority who on appeal affirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller and ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the tenant has converted the shop into a godown and this amounted to change of user.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the landlord filed an application for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short the Act) and sought eviction on three grounds, namely; that the tenant was in arrears of Rent since April, 1982; the shop was tenanted for the sale of English wine and Beer for which he had a valid licence. In March 1982, his licence was cancelled and he had closed the shop for a period exceeding four months; that the respondent had effected change of user from wine shop to a shop-cum-godown for selling and stocking utensils and other allied material without the consent in writing of the landlord and that the tenant has associated Smt. Kailash Rani as a partner in the business. The learned Appellate Authority after appraisal of the evidence found that the only ground which stands proved is that the tenant has converted the shop into a godown. He is stocking utensils in the shop and is running the business of selling utensils in another shop situate at Gandhi Chowk, Gurdaspur. Under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act, a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant if the latter has used the building for a purpose other than one for which it was leased out. In the eviction from the shop in question because he has effected the change of user from a wine shop to a shop-cum-godown for selling and stocking utensils and other allied material without the consent in writing of the petitioner. And he now also started the business of cloth very recently without the permission of the applicant." In the corresponding paragraph of the written statement it was pleaded as under :- "Para No. 2 (bb) of the application is incorrect and denied. The respondent has not effected any change of user, as alleged in this para of the application. It is submitted that at present, the respondent is carrying on the business of cloth in the shop under the name and style of "Bharat Handloom Emporium." A partnership deed dated 1.4.83 was executed with Smt. Kailash Rani widow of Sh. Puran Chand in the following shares :- Subhash Chander 40% Smt. Kailash Rani 60% The shop in question was not let out for any exclusive business. The shop is being used for the purpose of business and trade."
(3.) ADMITTEDLY no rent note has been produced from which it could be determined what was the original purpose for which the demises premises were let out. The landlord appeared as A.W.1 at the trial and he did not state as to what was the specified original purpose for which tenancy was created. Admittedly the shop was originally let out for carrying on the business of liquor vend. The rigour of section 13(a)(ii)(b) of the Act would be attracted if the change of user had caused any mischief or detriment or impairment to the shop. If the tenant is using the premises for any other commercial purpose it will not amount to change of user unless it has resulted in impairing the value and utility of the building. This matter is no more res integra and stands concluded by the Apex Court in Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1034 : 1985(1) RCR 444 (SC). The matter before the Apex Court arose in the following circumstances :- "The landlord granted lease to the tenant and the purpose of lease as stated in the rent note was as under : "That the tenant will run the business of English Liquor Vend in the shop - will do sale of Liquor." ;