TELU RAM Vs. OM PARKASH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition against the decisions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, dismissing the application of the landlord for ejectment of his tenant, has been placed before this Bench on a reference by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the case involves an important question of law.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are that the tenant -respondent got on lease the shop in dispute, which was owned by Jatindar, Kishore, sometimes before 1953. On October, 18 1958, at the request of that landlord the tenant executed a rent -note, which is Exhibit A 1. Inter alia it was stated there in by the tenant that he "will use the shop mainly for the purpose of general store". The evidence on the record shows that prior to the execution of this rent -note and even thereafter the tenant carried on the business of selling books and stationery. He continued this business till 1958 when he put up a printing machine in the back portion of the shop and obtained electric power connection for the purpose of running the same. Jatindar Kishore had, however, by means of a sale -deed, dated November 9 1964. sold the disputed premises to Telu Ram petitioner, who brought the application, out of which the present petition has arisen, for the ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the ground that the tenant has used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased The plea taken by the tenant was that he had fixed the printing press with the consent of Jatindar Kishore, the previous landlord, and that in any case the fixing of the printing press in a small portion of the demised premises did not amount to use the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and, therefore, he was not liable to ejectment as provided under Section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. The two issues which concern us in this petition were as follows -

(3.) TO begin with, the learned counsel for the landlord suggested that the premises in question were leased for carrying on the business of a 'general store and the business of selling books and stationery cannot be said to be a part of the 'general store' business. However, the material on the record shows that prior to the execution of the lease -deed. Exhibit A. 1, the respondent was carrying on the business of selling books and stationery and even after the execution of that rent note he continued to do the same business for a number of years before he fixed the printing press It would, therefore, be obvious that the landlord and the tenant, at the time of execution of the rent -note, Exhibit A. 1, did consider the business that was being carried on by the tenant as part of general store' business. This point was not, therefore, pressed by the learned counsel for respondent.