M.S.LIBERHAN,J - (1.) THE only questions raised in this revision petition are, (i) whether a purchaser can seek ejectment, on the ground of change of user during the period prior to the purchase; and (ii) whether the findings with respect to change of user were improperly arrived at.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the undisputed facts which have come on record and have not been challenged during the course of arguments are, that the premises in dispute were leased out to the petitioner on 28.7.1978 vide rent note Exhibit A1 by the precedessor-in-interest of the respondent-landlord. The respondent purchased the demised premises from him on 25.8.1982. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on 12.10.1982 on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has changed the user of the premises in dispute from a residential house to that of a commercial building i.e. for preparation and sale of sweets, without the written consent of the landlord. The tenant claimed that the premises in dispute were in fact leased out for no specific purpose and he was using the same for preparing and selling petha sweets from the very inception of the tenancy. The learned authorities below after appreciating tthe evidence and relying upon Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Des Raj v. Sham Lal, 1980(2) RCR 379 : AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 229, came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute leased out to the tenant were residential premises i.e. house and using the same for business purpose as admitted by the tenant amounted to change of user. No written consent has been either pleaded or proved on the record. Resultantly, ejectment order was passed.
(3.) LERANED counssel for the petitioner has half heartedly challenged the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below. He has taken me through thte oral evidence. The oral evidence becomes insignificant in view of the documentt Exhibit A1 admittedly having been executed between the landlord and tenant at the time of the leasing out the demised premises to the tenant. The lease deed Exhibit A1 categorically describes premises in dispute as a house, though no specific purpose for leasing it has been mentioned. In the Full Bench Judgment reported in Des Raj's case (supra) it has been observed : "A lease deed wherein the building leased out is described only has a building should be considered totally silent as to the user for which the demised building is leased out. Not only this, such a lease deed by itself would even be considered silent as to the category of building, that is it would not show whether demised building is land or a godown or an out-house or 'non-residential building' with the result that in such a case it would perhaps be open to lessee, if no other indication is available from the evidence, oral or documentary, which the parties would be entitled to adduce, suggestive of the category of the building and its intended use by the lessee, to put the building so leased to any use without attracting the provisions of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act." It was further observed :- "Accordingly, if a demised building is identified as a 'house' in a lease-deed, it would be taken that the parties had used the expression 'house' in the sense in which the 'house' is understood in common parlance or as indicated by its dictionary meaning. Similar would be the situation where the expression 'shop' is used. In such a case, the parties would be taken to have used the expression 'shop' as understood in common parlance and the meaning given to the same in the dictionaries." The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me to take a different view than the one taken by the authorities below. To be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has cited 1985(1) RCR 527. Undoubtedly, it supports the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, that where the premises are being used from the very inception for a different purpose than the one described in the rent note referring to the building, it would be deemed that the premises were leased for the purpose for which it was being used but I am afraid that in view of the Full Bench decision which is binding on me no option is left to follow the Single Bench.;