SUKHDEV SINGH CHAUDHARY Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord, against the orders passed by the courts below whereby the ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned appellate authority.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that Dr. Sukhdev Singh Chaudhary (landlord) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the respondent-tenant, seeking his ejectment from the shop in dispute, inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent, impairing the value and utility of the premises, change of user and nuisance. It was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- per month and that the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. March 1976 and that he had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and had changed user of the shop in dispute, i.e. now he was running the karyana shop instead of office for the supply of hand tools, for which purpose the shop was let out and that the tenant was a source of nuisance to the landlord and other occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. After hearing both sides, learned Rent Controller found that rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month, as alleged by the tenant, who had already paid arrears of rent from March 1976 till 30.11.1981 and had tendered the arrears of rent for the month of December 1981, alongwith interest and cost, and as such, tenant was not liable to be evicted from the shop in question, on the ground of non- payment of rent. It was further held that the tenant had not changed the user of the shop, because it was not proved as to for what specific purpose the shop in question was let out. It was also held that the landlord had failed to prove that the respondent had created nuisance. Resultantly, the ejectment petition was dismissed. Appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed by the learned appellate authority, upholding the findings of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, landlord has filed the present revision petition in this court.