AMIN CHAND Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant-petitioner, had filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullunder, dated April 17, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Jullundur, dated September 25, 1975, directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) THE premises, in dispute, i. e. , the vacant site measuring 4 marlas situated in Rasta Mohalla, Jullundur, were rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 20 vide rent note, Exhibit A-1 dated October 2, 1964, for selling firewood. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the grounds that, (a) the tenant had not paid to the landlords the rent of the demised premised since June 2, 1973. (b) that the respondent had been using the disputed premises for the purpose other than that for which they were taken on rent by him, (c) that the respondent had committed such acts as were sure to impair the value and utility of the disputed premises; (d) that the respondent had been guilty of such acts and conduct as were a nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood and (e) that the respondent had violated the terms and conditions, as contained in the aforesaid rent deed. The allegations of the landlord were controverted in the written statement filed by the petitioner. On the pleading of the parties, the Rent Controller, framed the following issues:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that on the findings, given by the Appellate Authority, it could not be held that the tenant-petitioner, had used the premises, in dispute, for a purpose other than that for which they had been taken on rent by him because it had been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the business of selling firewood, for which the demised premises were let out in the beginning was still being carried on by the tenant. In addition thereto, he was also tethering a buffalo and also selling tool therein and, therefore, in there circumstances, the order evicting the petitioner from the premises, in dispute, could not passed by the Appellate Authority. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the firm Himalayan Traders v. Narain Dass, (1966) 68 Pan LR 367. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the premises, in dispute, were let out to the petitioners for running the business of selling the firewood only and now the tenant had been found to be keeping his buffalo, and toori therein and, thus, he has been using the disputed property for the purpose other than that for which they were rented out to him. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Des Raj v. Sham Lal. AIR 1980 Punj and Har 229 (FB), and Both Ram v. Mathra Dass, 1976 Rent Cj (SN) 32. The learned counsel further contended that in any case, the order of ejectment could be sustained on the ground on which the Rent Collector came to the conclusion to the tenant was guilty or impairing the value and utility of the premises, in dispute.