KRISHAN LAL NANDA Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Madan Lal sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the room in question on the grounds that the latter had not paid the rent to him with effect from 1.10.1984 to 30.11.1986 amounting to Rs. 3900/- besides house tax and interest; that the tenant had changed the user of the premises from residential to non-residential and that he needed the said premises for his own use and occupation. The tenant denied the assertions of the landlord. As a result of the trial that followed, the Rent Controller rejected the stand of the landlord with regard to the change of user of the premises but accepted his plea that he needed the premises for his personal necessity. Therefore, he ordered the eviction of the tenant. On appeal, the Additional District Judge (Appellate Authority), Karnal affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Through this revision petition, the judgment of the Appellate Court dated February 28, 1991, has been challenged.

(2.) RECORD of the lower authorities has been summoned and perused. The tenant tendered the arrears of rent demanded in the petition along with interest and costs as asseded by the Rent Controller. The landlord accepted the same vide his statement of even date and, therefore, the ground of non-payment of rent was given up by the counsel for the landlord. In order to prove his plea that the tenant had changed the user of the premises in dispute from residential to non-residential, the landlord has examined Mohan Lal PW3 and has himself stepped into the witness box as PW2. According to both of them, the demised premises was a room situated on the north-western corner of the house bearing No. B-43. It was let out to the petitioner for residential purpose but he had subsequently converted the same into his clinic which act on the part of the tenant amounted to the conversion of the residential building into non-residential one. This oral evidence has been rightly disbelieved by the authorities below inasmuch as the landlord himself appearing in the witness box has admitted that one month prior to the letting out of the demised premises to the tenant, a shutter had been fixed on its door. Moreover, the statements of Krishan Lal tenant appearing as RW2 and those of Tara Chand RW3 and Jagan Nath RW4 inspire confidence when they say that the demised premises was let out to the tenant for the purpose of running a clinic and that the tenant was residing with his father in Prem Nagar, Karnal. Mohan Lal PW3 was a witness from an independent source. He too has admitted that the tenant had been running his clinic in the demised premises. Exhibit R-2, Copy of an entry in the house tax register for the year 1985-86 in respect of the property of which the demised premises is a portion, has also been pressed into service. In the said document, one shop has been shown as a part of the property. No doubt, this document is a piece of evidence from an independent source but on the basis of the same, it could be only said that at the time of the house tax assessment, it was found that a shop was being run in one of its rooms.

(3.) IN view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any fault with the findings of the lower authorities to the effect that the demised premises had not been constructed as a shop from the very beginning and that whole of the House No. B 43, including the demised premises, was constructed as a residential house and further that originally, the demised premises along with the main portion of the house was being used by the landlord for his residence but later on the demised premises was let out to the tenant as a shop and that being so, it could not be held that the tenant had changed user of the premises in question from residential to non-residential.