RAMESH KUMAR Vs. ASHA MARWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition, against whom order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller in a petition for eviction filed by the respondent-landlords on 19.5.1986. This order has since been confirmed by the Appellate authority on 14.8.1989 in an appeal preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent-landlords sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of change of user of the premises in dispute as also that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for the continuous period of four months. The eviction was ordered on both the grounds, referred to above. It is the case of the respondent-landlords that the premises in dispute was let out as shop and its user was changed inasmuch as, the same was used as a godown. The petitioner- tenant stopped using the premises even as a godown, and, thus, he ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of more than four months. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently contends that income- tax returns in respect of the premises in dispute were produced on the records which would clearly demonstrate that the premises was being used as a godown from the very inception of the tenancy. The tenancy in the present case was started on 12.10.1970, as is evidenced by a rent note, Ex.A.1. The income-tax returns, as were produced before the Rent Controller, pertain to the years 1973-74 and 1975-76. If the rented premises was being used as a godown from the very beginning, the petitioner should have produced the income-tax returns for the year 1970-71. Non-filing of income tax returns for the year 1970-71 and onwards would rather show that the premises in dispute was earlier being used as a shop and a change of user of the premises was made from 1973-74 onwards. This itself would prove change of user. The, contention raised by Mr. Mahajan, in fact, turns against the petitioner and the circumstances indicate that the user of the premises was changed. Since the findings with regard to change of user are concurrent, there is no scope at all to reverse these findings in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Nothing at all has been shown that may show non-consideration of evidence or that the evidence was misread by learned Rent Controller/the Appellate Authority. There is no need to go into the other ground of eviction pertaining to ceasing to occupy the premises as establishment of one ground is enough to sustain the order. Petition dismissed.