RAJ KUMAR Vs. SUDERSHAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority holding that the tenant has changed the user of the property.

(2.) The facts are not disputed. The shop was let to the petitioner for the purposes of carrying the business of dry-cleaning. After he started the business of the sale of building material in it. The Rent Controller held that the tenant had changed the user of the building. Consequently he accepted the application for ejectment and ordered his ejectment. On appeal the Appellate Authority affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. The tenant has come up in revision.

(3.) Mr. Sarin has vehemently contended that a similar case has been referred to a Division Bench in Civil Revision No. 1671 of 1979 (Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal) and therefore the case requires consideration by this Court. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the matter is concluded by the full Bench decision of this Court.