SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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 :-