SANJEEV KUMAR SOOD Vs. INDERJEET DHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts averred and noticed are that petitioner respondent i.e. Inderjeet Dhiman son of late Shri Amar Chand Dhiman, is the owner and landlord of the factory existing at plot No. 518, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, out of which a room has been let out to the respondent- petitioner i.e. Sanjeev Kumar Sood son of Harbilas Sood, proprietor M/s Sood Packers and Printers and that the said room was to be used as office of the aforesaid proprietary firm. The said room has been marked as ABCD in the map of the factory which has been attached with the petition. The tenancy had been created at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month plus electricity and water charges and that a rent deed was also executed in respect thereto. The landlord has been receiving the rent and has been executing the appropriate receipts in respect thereof. The tenant became a defaulter since September 1, 1989 and apart from that also became liable to pay water and electricity charges as well. It has been specifically mentioned in the rent note that the premises shall be used as an office but the tenant started misusing the same and got installed a printing machine without the consent of the landlord. The landlord filed an application for eviction on three counts i.e. on account of non-payment of rent since September 1, 1989, secondly the demised premises are being used for a purpose other than the one for which the same had been let out. Thirdly, the demised premises are required by the landlord for his own bona fide use and occupation.

(2.) UPON notice, the tenant contested the application and has filed a detailed written statement. It has been pleaded that the demised premises had been taken on rent from Shri Amar Chand Dhiman who has since died and that the alleged landlord is not the only legal heir and is, therefore, not competent to file an application for eviction. It has also been pleaded that the printing press was installed in the demised premises after taking loan from the bank as the premises had been rented out for the purpose of setting up the printing machine and that the demised premises were never taken on rent for the purpose of using as an office only. The rent note has been disputed being not admissible into evidence. The rent claimed having been tendered on the first date of hearing the application has become infructuous in this regard. The liability of water and electricity charges has been denied. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been framed and that the parties produced ocular as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleas and pleadings.

(3.) IN respect of the change of user of the premises the landlord appeared as his own witness as PW1 and he has categorically stated that his father was the owner of the demised premises and that after his death he has become the owner of the same. It has also been stated that the demised premises had been let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- to be used for the purpose of office only. The said room has been defined for use of office as per the sanctioned plan. The rent deed has been exhibited as Ex. P1 as the execution of the same has been admitted by the tenant. There is a categoric stipulation contained in the rent deed as per clause (5) which reads as under :-