OM PRAKASH JAIN Vs. CHIRANJI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant, Om Prakash Jain, who is the applicant before me in a revision under Sec. 115 C.P.C. is a tenant in a portion of house No. 83, Ranjit Puri, Old Machhli Bazar, Meerut Gantt. A decree for his eviction from these premises was granted by the Judge, Small Causes, Meerut in a suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties. The basis upon which the eviction of the applicant . from the premises in suit was sought was that having been let in the premises as a tenant, for residing therein, the applicant used it in a manner inconsistent with the purposes for which the premises were let out to him. It was found by the trial Judge that the applicant had taken the house for residential purposes but later stored hosiery goods in the bigger of the two rooms in his tenancy and, thus, used it for wholesale business of hosiery. The use to which the premises were thus being put being inconsistent with the purpose for which the applicant was let into the premises, the applicant was held liable for ejectment. The trial Judge noticed the admission made by the applicant in his deposition that "he brought hosiery goods from Delhi and distributed them to retailers on bicycle". The further admission noticed by the trial Judge was to the effect that for some time the applicant had affixed a board in the premises in suit showing the name of Amar Nath Textiles which was, however, removed when the Cantonment Board sent a notice objecting to it. The trial Judge, oil the finding recorded by him, concluded that the applicant had used the premises in his tenancy inconsistently with the purpose for which it was created and as noticed earlier, decreed the suit, inter alia, for the ejectment of the applicant.

(2.) Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Judge, the applicant assailed the same in a revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Meerut, who heard the aforesaid revision, agreed with the trial Judge and affirmed the decree. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Judge on the facts of the case that the applicant had changed the purpose of tenancy and that he had used the major portion of the accommodation let out to him for residential purposes for his commercial purposes which was inconsistent with the purpose for which the accommodation was let out to him, was correct. The applicant has now come up to this Court in the present revision under Sec. 115 C.P.C.

(3.) Appearing for the defendant-applicant, Sri Chand Kishore has contended that even on the facts as found by the trial Judge, it is clear that the applicant had not used the premises demised to him for a purpose either inconsistent with or different from the one for which he was let into the premises. His submission is that the mere fact that in the bigger of the two rooms under the tenancy of the applicant, hosiery goods were stored by the applicant, was not enough in law to hold that the applicant has used the premises for a purpose different from the residential purpose for which the demised premises had been given to him. Since, according to the submission, the courts below are patently wrong in their view that the applicant had made an inconsistent user or a user different from the one for which the premises had been let out to him, their decision cannot be upheld nor can the decree for ejectment be sustained for the trial Judge would have no jurisdiction to direct the eviction of the applicant unless, in law, the finding that the demised premises had been used for a purpose different from or inconsistent with the one for which they were let out to the applicant is sustained.