LAJWANTI Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords are petitioners before this Court. They filed an ejectment petition against the tenant-respondent. The ground of ejectment was the change of user by the tenant without a written consent of the landlords.

(2.) THE case put up by the landlords was that originally, the said tenant had changed the user and started selling tea, eggs and cold drinks. It was further stated that the tenant had started preparing tea and omelette and selling refreshments to the customers. The tenant contested the petition and denied that there was any change of user. In fact he claimed that the shop was not taken out for a specific purpose but he had been selling green vegetables and fruits in the shop. He denied the change of user.

(3.) I have heard Ms. Monika Goel, learned counsel appearing for the landlord- petitioners and with her assistance have also gone through the record of the case. Ms. Monika Goel has vehemently argued that in fact the findings recorded by the learned authorities below were entirely contrary to the record, inasmuch as the Local Commissioner has also found it as a fact that there were some empty tokras in the shop but there was no vegetables as such and further that the empty crates of soda water bottles were also lying. There was one stove also on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid report submitted by the Local Commissioner, the learned counsel maintains that the said report in fact proved the case of the landlords to the effect that now the tenant was not selling the vegetables but was carrying the business of selling tea, cold drinks and refreshments to his customers.