RAJ KUMARI Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the orders of the Authorities below by which the ejectment application of the respondents-landlady was allowed and the petitioner-tenant was ordered to be ejected on the ground of change of user from Kashida Kari, i. e. embroidery work to sale of electric goods and repair of refrigerators. Respondents filed the application for eviction of the petitioner on several grounds. Out of the said grounds, one ground taken against the petitioner-tenant was that she took the demised premises for doing the Kashida Kari work, i. e. embroidery work, and that she has changed the user by utilising the portion of the shop for selling electrical goods and repair of refrigerators.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Rent Controller, the defence of the petitioner-tenant was that she increased the rent to Rs. 60/- p. m. inclusive of house tax, and on the oral permission of the landlady, started utilising the portion of the shop for selling electrical goods. Both the Authorities below have concurrently found that the shop in dispute was let out vide rent noted dated 15th of July, 1979, and under the said rent note, the tenant was allowed only to do the business of embroidery work.

(3.) SHRI H. L. Sarin, Sr Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the shop in dispute was let out for carrying on the business, and merely by using the portion of the shop for another business will not amount to change of user. He further contended that there is no evidence on record to show that doing the business of selling electrical goods and repairing, of refrigerators, in any way, has impaired the utility or damaged the shop. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Mohan Lal, v. Jai Bhagwan, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R. 670 (S. C. ). Rattan Lal v. Asha Rani, 1988 H. R. R. 625 and Dhanpat Rai v. Lajpat Rai (deceased) represented by his L. R's. Shanti Devi, (1989-1) 95 P. L. R. 387.