SHRI KARAM CHAND Vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Karam Chand, landlord petitioner, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on 16th of February, 1980, against his tenant Banwari Lal, inter alia on the grounds - (i) that the tenant had failed to pay rent since September 19, 1959; (ii) that he is using the property in dispute for a purpose different to the one for which it had been rented out as he had started using it for residential purposes. The plea regarding non-payment of rent had been given up because the arrears had been paid The Rent Controller accepted the plea of the landlord that the premises in dispute were let out to be used as a "shop", but the tenant had started living therein thereby converting the nonresidential building into a residential building. Dissatisfied with this order, Karam Chand, tenant filed an appeal The same was accepted by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the tenant had not started residing in the shop in dispute and he had not changed the user thereof.

(2.) The facts concurrently found by the authorities are that the shop was let out to the respondent for running a Halwai shop. The respondent-tenant sells sweets in the front portion of the shop. A chullah has been constructed in the back room and certain utensils were lying there. There is also a latrine in the courtyard which had been used on the day when the local Commissioner went to inspect the premises On the basis of these facts the Rent Controller, found that the tenant was residing in the premises. However, the Appellate Authority differed with him and from these very facts inferred that the tenant was not residing in the premises in dispute. The presence of Chulla (hearth) and utensils will only show that perhaps meals were being coocked in those premises but that in itself will not mean that the tenant also resided there. It is quite possible that occasionally he cooked his food or prepared his tea etc. for his user It is significant that no bedding or cots were found in the premises by the local Commissioner. A latrine can be provided even in a commercial building The presence of a latrine does not mean that the building is a residential It has come in evidence that the tenant is a widower. Moreover, he is an Halwai (confectioner). The Chulla may be required even for his business purposes. In any case, it cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the above mentioned proved facts are in any way perverse.

(3.) Mr. Kartar Singh Raipuri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has then argued that the tenant constructed the latrine without the permission of the landlord and this has impaired the value and utility of the shop in question. There is no evidence on this aspect of the case. No witness apart from the Mukhtiar of the landlord has stated that the latrine had been constructed by the tenant. It has not been stated by any body that this was done without the consent or that the same had impaired the value or utility of the shop in dispute. In fact this point was not even argued before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority.