MUNNA @ MANOJ KUMAR Vs. RAM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails judgment and order dtd. 12/1/2015 of the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, whereby appeal filed by the present petitioner/tenant against eviction order passed under Sec. 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Broadly speaking, the relevant circumstances as culled out of record are as follows. The present respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under Sec. 14(1)(c) of the Act, seeking eviction of the present petitioner/tenant from the tenanted premises bearing shop no.6, in property no.WZ-297C, Village Madipur, New Delhi, alleging that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in the subject premises for the business of selling electrical goods, but later on the petitioner changed the use of the subject premises by stocking inflammable material like paints, thinners, tarpin and chemical etc., which is endangering the safety and health of remaining tenants in the larger premises and since the changed use was without obtaining any license from MCD, it is a public nuisance, but despite service of notice dtd. 11/4/2007 he did not stop the misuse. The petitioner/tenant contested the petition and after completion of pleadings, followed by full dress trial, the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition after elaborately analyzing the evidence by way of judgment dtd. 20/12/2012. The petitioner/tenant having suffered the eviction order filed an appeal, which was dismissed by way of judgment and order impugned in the present proceedings.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant after taking me through above record and the provisions of law under Sec. 14(1)(c) and Sec. 14(5) of the Act contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant contended that the impugned order suffers perversity insofar as, there is no evidence on record to show that the goods stored by the petitioner/tenant in the subject premises are in any manner inflammable or dangerous. Further, it was contended that the notice dtd. 16/8/1999 clearly mentioned that the subject premises were leased out to the predecessor of the petitioner/tenant for running hardware, sanitary work and paints, so it is certainly not a case of change of use of the subject premises. It was argued that since the said quit notice was concealed by the respondent/landlord in the eviction petition, the petition was liable to be dismissed. It was also argued that for storage of paints etc., no license from municipality is required unless the said material is beyond a prescribed quantity. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant also referred to a photograph forming part of the trial court record, which depicted two drums lying outside the subject premises and contended that there is no evidence as to what was stored in the same.