RATTAN LAL Vs. CHHIDA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -tenant's ejectment has concurrently been ordered by the two subordinate authorities, that is the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, that is the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, on the ground change of user of the demised premises. What has been found by the two authorities is that though the shop in question was initially let out to the petitioner's father for installing an oil expeller to be run by electric power, yet they in addition to the same had also installed three cotton ginning machines, a rice mill, a flour mill and a cotton carding machine, which were all being run by a 20 H.P diesel engine. Since the running of this engine in the demised premises caused lot of vibration, structure of the same had considerably been damaged and the same had become unfit for human habitation also. This finding is based not only on the evidence of the witness examined by the contesting parties, including their building experts, but also on the basis of the report of the local commissioner, Shri Rajinder Sharma, Advocate. Though before the Appellate Authority an attempt was made by the petitioners to bring on record certain additional evidence to establish that vide rent note dated 14th November, 1966 as noted at serial No. 404 of the petition writes's register (Shri Tulsi Dass), the premises had been let out for running the business of oil extraction and allied business yet the said prayer of theirs was declined by the Court vide para 8 of the Appellate Authority's order for the reason that the petitioners were well aware of this piece of evidence and failed to produce the same at the relevant time without any justifiable reason.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find no good reason to disagree with the conclusions recorded by the two subordinate authorities with regard to the change of user of premises in question. It could not possibly be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that installation of the additional machinery and more particularly the diesel engine for running the same, the user of the building in question had not materially been changed. It is in evidence that the running of these machines with the help of a diesel engine has considerably damaged the property in question. I, therefore, find no justification to upset the impugned orders. The petition in thus dismissed with no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.