SHAM LAL GUPTA Vs. KULWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition challegnes order of eviction passed by the courts below on the ground of change of user.

(2.) RESPONDENT -landlord filed an application for eviction from suit premises alleging that though the shop was rented out for carrying on business of Karyana and other household merchandise, the tenant started Table Tennis Club which amounted to change of user. It was further alleged that the use of the shop as Club creates lot of noise which causes nuisance to residents of the locality.

(3.) LEARNED Counself for the petitioner submitted that in absence of any prohibition, change of one business to the other could not be held to be change of user within the meaning of Section 13(2)(ii)(b). Reliance is placed on judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in Jagan Nath v. Dev Chawla, 1987(2) RCR(Rent) 639 (P&H) : 1987(89) P.L.R. 583 wherein it was held that where no specific purpose for letting out was proved and even if it is shown that the premises were used initially for one purpose and later on for another purpose, this will not amount to change of user. In Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, 1988(1) RCR(Rent) 444 (SC) : 1988-1(93) P.L.R. 670 (S.C.), it was held that where a building was rented out for the purpose of carrying on business, using it for another business will not amount to change of user as it will not in any way impair the utility of the building. In Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain, 1989(2) RCR(Rent) 233 (SC) : 1989-2(96) P.L.R. 313 (SC), it was held that where a shop was let out for rikshaw repairing business, business of selling TV sets could not be held to a purpose other than that for which the shop was let out. In Jagdish Lal v. Parma Nand, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 381 (SC) : 2000-2(125) P.L.R. 512 (SC), it was held that mere change of business does not amount to change of user, unless agreement between the parties provides that premises cannot be used for a purpose other than a particular business. Similar view has also been taken in recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Lal Buranwal v. Virendra Kumar Aggarwal, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 178 (SC) : A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1056.