UJAGAR SINGH Vs. MANOHAR LAL ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANOHAR Lal Anand landlord-respondent (deceased) represented through his legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) let out Booth No. 24, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh to Ujagar Singh petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) in the year 1969 to carry on the business of cycle repair works. Sometime during the tenancy, tenant opened a ration depot in the demise premises.

(2.) LANDLORD filed the ejectment petition against the tenant on three counts i. e. non-payment of rent, damage to the premises as it diminishes the value and utility of the building and change of user. The first two grounds namely; non-payment and damage to the premises so as to diminishing the value and utility were not in contest before the Appellate Authority. No arguments have been raised on these two points. The third ground regarding change of user is the only ground which servives for adjudication.

(3.) COUNSEL for the tenant argued that the building was rented for the purr pose of carrying on business and its use for any other business from the original one, would not impair the value and utility of the building and consequential change of used from one business to other would be no ground to order ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. For this reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court Judgment in Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R. 670 (S. C.) wherein their Lord-ship of the Supreme Court held that the change of business in the premise for English Liquor to that of general merchandise will not amount to change of user within the meaning of Section 13 (2) (ii) (b) Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973. Section 13 (2) of the said Act is paramateria as in the present case. It was observed as under : "in the expanding concept of business now-a-days and the growing concept of departmental stores, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that there was any change of user in the facts of this case which would attract the mischief of the provisions of Section 13 (2) (ii) (b) of the Act. The building was rented for the purpose of carrying on a business, using it for another business, it will not in anyway impair the utility or damage the building and this business can be conveniently carried on in the said premises. There was no nuisance created. " This judgment of the Supreme Court was followed by a Single Judge of this Court in Sewa Ram v. Diwan Singh, (1989-1) 95 P. L. R. 500 wherein it was held that change of business from-Karyana to cycle repair would not amount to change of user. In Kartar Singh v. Ajaib Singh, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R. 92, learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that change of user from selling of meal to cycle repair business would not amount to change of user, warranting the. ejectment of the tenant from the rented premises 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord could not cite any judgment to the contrary. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal's case (supra) which has been followed in a number of judgments by this Court, it is held the the change of business from cycle repair works to that of ration depot would not amount to change of user. It did not impair the utility and cause damage to the building in any way by such change. 6. Either of the Courts below have not recorded any finding that change of user as in the present case impaired the utility or damage the building in any way, I refrain from recording any findings regarding constructive res-judicata as the case has been deckled on merits. 7. For the reasons stated above, this revision is accepted. Order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority is set aside and the ejectment petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.