KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. MUKANDI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition filed under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act') against the judgment of reversal dated 30.5.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar, holding that there was neither any material change of user nor any material impairment because there was no rent note in existence showing the purpose, for which the demised premises was let-out. The tenancy was admittedly oral. It has also been found that the demised premises, which is a shop was taken on rent for selling iron. The change of use as alleged at the time of filing the ejectment petition was that the tenant-respondent has been selling steel and aluminum utensils and stoves in the demised premises. The Appellate Authority held on the basis of a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal, 1984 PLR 1 that it would not amount to change of user because the subsequent use of the shop was ancillary to the original purpose. The observation of the Appellate Authority reads as under :-

(2.) THE second ground that there was material impairment in the utility of the building by fixing steel shutters in place of wooden slippers was also held insufficient for ordering the eviction of the tenant-respondent. The view of the Appellate Authority is reflected in para 10, which reads as under :-

(3.) MR . Parbodh Mittal, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent has argued that there is no scope for interference in the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below because no rent note enshrining the term of the agreement to use the shop for a particular purpose have been proved. Only oral evidence has been brought on record showing that the shop was let out for the purpose of running iron business. According to the learned counsel sale of steel/aluminum utensils and stoves would be in any case be covered by the primary purpose of selling iron in the shop. The learned counsel has further argued that on the second ground also there is hardly any room to interfere because the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below are that the replacement of wooden slippers with an iron shutter would not result into impairment of the value and utility of the demised shop.