SHRI ROSHAN LAL NIROLA Vs. SHRIMATI SANTOSH MAHENDROO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Roshan Lal Nirola took a residential house No. 46, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh for his residence vide rent note dated June 1, 1971 at a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- Later on the tenant obtained Advocate's license on 27th October, 1971 and started practising as an Advocate and used one of the rooms of the residential house as his office. On 4th November, 1972 the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 was made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Afterwards the rent was increased to Rs. 325/- per month. On 10th October, 1977 the landlord filed an ejectment petition on the following grounds:-

(2.) As regards changed of user for purposes of dry cleaning and printing of sarees this matter was not pressed by the landlord before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority. However the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority found that the tenant had changed the user of demised premises and converted the same from residential building to a 'schedule building' and consequently ordered ejectment of the tenant on this ground alone. This is tenant's revision petition from the aforesaid order.

(3.) Shri Y.P. Gandhi appearing for the tenant has urged that since the tenant started using part of the premises in dispute by setting up his office as an Advocate on 27th October, 1971, that is, before the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 became applicable to the Urban Territory of Chandigarh, therefore the ground of eviction contained in the provisions of Section 13 [2] [ii] [b] was not available to the landlord because the change of user had taken place before the commencement of this Act. This legal proposition is not res-intergra. Apart from several decisions noticed by the Appellate Authority few binding decisions deserve to be noticed. A Division bench of this Court in Surjit Singh v. Rattan Lal Aggarwal and others, 1980 AIR(P&H) 319 considered this precise matter as follows :-