SHRI GOKAL CHAND HALWAI Vs. SHRI TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tilak Raj made an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for eviction of his tenant Gokal Chand on the allegations that the respondent is a tenant in a shop bearing Khanna Shumari No. 272/16-4 at a monthly rent of Rs. 12/- for the last 14 years under the applicant. He further averred that the respondent was liable to ejectment from the demised property on the following grounds :-

(2.) Mr. G.R. Majithia, The learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that there was no rent note from which it could be determined as to what was the purpose for which the shop has been let out on rent. In the ejectment application also, it was not specified as to for what business the shop has been rented out. In the absence of specific pleadings, no amount of evidence can be looked into to determine as to for what purpose the shop had been rented out. One thing is clear that the premises in dispute are a shop. They were let out for carrying out a business. The Rent Controller and the Appellant Authority on the basis of the evidence produced have come to a positive finding of fact that no business is being carried out in the demised premise Coal and fuel wood etc. are being stored therein. So, the premises are not being used as a shop. No business is infact carried on there. The shop is rather being used as a godown. A shop let out for business can be used only for carrying on some business. It cannot be used as a godown for storing fuel wood etc. The fact that there is no rent note is of no consequence. The controversy in the case is fully covered by a recent decision of a Full Bench in Des Raj v. Sham Lal, 1980 AIR(P&H) 229 It has been held therein :-