S. KULWANT SINGH Vs. SHRI KESHAV CHANDER JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision is at the instance of the tenant, who has suffered a reversal of finding before the Appellate Authority. The latter found that the tenant had caused an unauthorized change of user of the property.

(2.) Admittedly, the lease was for running a business as General Merchant at a rent of Rs.75/- per month. The admitted case again was that at the time when the tenant had taken the premises on rent, he was doing retail business in demised property at Shop No.12, Jain Market and he had taken yet another shop from the very same landlord in respect of Shop No.22 where he was said to be a godown. He had come by possession of yet another building subsequent to the lease in Shop No.5573, Saudagar Bazar and it is also the admitted contention initially by the tenant that he was running his retail business in Shop No.5573 after he acquired possession of the said building.

(3.) While the landlord was contending that the acquisition of a new property in Shop No.5573 led to a conversion of this property as a godown and that he was not doing any retail business and that it remained closed for most of the day, the tenant wanted to contend that he was doing wholesale business running an agency and also the retail business in the demised property itself. At the time of evidence, when the petitioner-landlord placed the evidence of PW-2 to say that the shop remained closed, the tenant refuted the evidence by giving evidence that he was doing retail business, wholesale business as well as using it as an agency. Elsewhere towards the end of the cross-examination, he abandoned his earlier version and threw a towel in caution when he contended that he was not doing any retail business in Shop No.5573, Saudagar Bazar and that he was doing the retail business only from Shop No.12. This, the Appellate Court found, was an instance of the witness not speaking the truth. The Court also made an issue of the fact that if the petitioner had been actually running a retail business, wholesale business and also using the property as an agency from the demised premise, there ought to have been documents to evidence the conduct of business from the demised premise. Admittedly, the documents had not been filed and drew an adverse inference from the fact that if he had been doing wholesale business or retail business from the demised premise, it was the best proof for vindicating his stand but the tenant did not have the evidence in that regard.