SANTOSH KAPUR Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities below dismissing the ejectment petition filed by them against the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent was inducted as a tenant in the demised shop with a Chaubara vide rent note dated 3.7.1976 Exhibit AW.1/A. The petitioners have sought ejectment on the ground that the respondent who was let out the shop for Karyana business had also installed a grinding machine without their consent and, thus, the respondent has changed the user of the demised premises. The respondent-tenant denied the allegation of change of user of the demised premises and asserted that the premises were taken on rent for the purpose of business and are being used for the purposes of business alone.

(3.) IN the present revision petition, Sh. R.K. Battas, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that it is admitted by the respondent- tenant while appearing as RW1 that the grinding machine is that of 10 HP and, therefore, the finding recorded by the authorities below that the tenant is using the grinding machine for grinding of Masala is not tenable. It is submitted that electricity connection for 10 HP grinding machine is, in fact, an industrial connection and it is manufacturing activity which is not permissible and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted. He has relied upon the judgments reported as Shri Kishan Chand and another v. Shri Gurjinder Singh Arora, Advocate, 1991(1) Punjab Law Reporter 196 : 1991(1) RCR(Rent) 153 (P&H); and Ram Parkash v. Nathu Ram, 1984(1) R.C.R. 214 to the effect that carrying of a business activity in the premises which has been let out to do Karyana business would amount to change of user.