J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord Lajpat Rai claimed the eviction of the tenant from the premises on the ground that the same were let out vide rent note dated August 13, 1962, for using the same for the purpose of Halwai whereas now the tenant was doing the business of kiryana therein. So, it was alleged that it was a change of user thereof. The stand taken by the tenant was that the premises were being used for the same purpose for which they were let out. However, the execution of the rent note was not disputed The learned Rent Controller found that the premises were let out for being used for the shop of Halwai and the tenant was doing the business of kiryana therein and as such, there was change in user. Thus, the tenant was liable to be ejected. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on March 28, 1981. In appeal, the Appellate Authority, affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the matter now stands concluded by the Supreme Court judgment in Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan : (1988) 93 P. L. R. 670, wherein it was held that where the building was rented for carrying on a business, using it for another business did not amount to a change of user The learned Counsel also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Rattan Lal v. Asha Rani, 1988 (2) R. L. R. 785, wherein it was held that the shop taken on rent for running grocery shop, but later on running a bookshop therein did not incur any liability for eviction on the ground of user. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, even if it be assumed that the premises were let out for Halwai shop and now merchandise was being carried on therein, it did not amount to change of user, because the purpose of the letting the premises is the same, i. e running a business.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord -Respondent submitted that the said judgments are distinguishable According to the learned Counsel, what was held therein was that the business must be an allied one and since the kiryana business was not allied to the Halwai business, it amounted to change of user. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Maharaj Kishan Kesar v. Wilkha Singh, 1966 C. L J. (SC) 274.;