VIDYAWATI Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra, dated 1.3.1988 whereby the appeal of the respondent-tenant against the order of his eviction has been allowed.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlady had sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of change of user. It was alleged that the demised premises had been let out for the purpose of godown whereas the tenant had started using the same for manufacturing and sale of Lisapol (liquid detergent). The claim of the landlady was accepted by the Rent Controller, Kaithal who vide his order dated 23.4.1987 allowed the eviction petition on this ground. On appeal, the Appellate Authority found that the Rent Controller has accepted the claim merely on the basis of a sign board put up on top of the demised premises showing that it was a Lisapol manufacturing factory. However, there was no evidence to show that there was any factory actually installed inside. There was no visible signs of any appartus ever seen by anyone in the premises nor was there any electric or water connection therein. Thus, it was held that the sign board had only been put up to promote the sales of the detergent and the sale were being conducted from another shop at a short distance away from the godown where there was a proper sale counter. It was further held that since the premises had been let out originally as a godown, it was immaterial as to what material was being stored therein. Thus it was held that the premises was still being used as a godown and as such there was no change of user.

(3.) I am unable to accept this contention. It was not the case of the petitioner that the demised premises had been let out as a godown for storing any specific commodity. The claim of the petitioner was that it was let out as a godown and it was later being used as a factory-cum-shop. This claim has been found to be incorrect. The appellate authority was right in holding that once the premises had been let out as a godown, it was not material as to what was being stored therein. In view of the above, it is clear that the findings of the Appellate Authority are based on proper appraisal of material on record, thus, no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate authority for interference by this court.