BALDEV KRISHAN Vs. PURAN CHAND HAKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated April 12, 1980 whereby the order of the Rent Controller, directing his ejectment was maintained. The premises in dispute consists of three rooms of a house bearing House No. W.E. 305, situated at Ali Mohalla, Jullundur City. Vide rent note dated November 20, 1960 Exhibit A-1, it was rented out to the tenant-petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 28/- for residential purposes. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the tenant has started doing business therein and as such, there has been a change of user. It was also claimed that the premises were required bona fide for the personal use and occupation of the landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(2.) All these issues have been found in favour of the landlord and order of ejectment was passed against his tenant. In appeal the findings of the Rent Controller were upheld. Consequently, the order was maintained. Feeling aggrieved against this, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The sole question in this case is, whether the premises in dispute were rented out for residential purposes, or not. Rent note Exhibit A-1 is on the record. Both the authorities below, after going through the evidence on the record and the said rent note, have come to a concurrent finding that the premises were let out for residential purposes only as is clearly stated in the rent note and since, admittedly, the tenant has started doing business therein without any written permission of the landlord, he was liable for ejectment. I have gone through the rent note Exhibit A-1 and it is quite clear therefrom that the premises were let out for residential purposes. If subsequently the tenant has started doing business without any written consent of the landlord, then certainly he has rendered himself liable for ejectment. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner had nothing to urge as to point out any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the Appellate Authority. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the premises in dispute, provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for two months is deposited with the Rent Controller within a fortnight from this order.