ANIL SHARMA Vs. GURINDER SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Demised premises i.e. House No.1278, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh was let out by Mohinder Kaur to Suresh Mehrotra on 10.3.1978. Mohinder Kaur died on 17.10.1988. After her death her son and grand son claimed that they had become owners by virtue of an unregistered Will executed by Mohinder Kaur. Respondents claim that Suresh Mehrotra initially kept his residence in the premises but later set up an office of Chartered Accountant. In the year 1998 he handed over possession of the premises to Anil Sharma (petitioner herein). Respondents sought eviction of petitioner from the premises on three grounds i.e. subletting, change of user and non-payment of rent. According to them, Anil Sharma had shifted his residence to House No.217, Sector 2, Panchkula and was using the premises only as an office. They also alleged non-payment of rent after death of Mohinder Kaur. Rent Controller framed issues in the matter regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whether tenant was liable to be ejected on ground of non-payment of rent, change of user or subletting. During trial petitioners examined a witness Kuldeep Singh Chandpuri as PW1 and a clerk from Estate Office. Respondents examined a Computer Operator from a bank and petitioner himself stepped into the witness-box. On issue No.1, Rent Controller held that petitioners had failed to prove that they were landlords of the premises. Findings on issues No.2, 3 & 4 were likewise. Eviction petition was, thus, dismissed. Respondents filed appeal before the Appellate Authority at Chandigarh. Before the Appellate Authority, the landlords did not press the issue of non-payment of rent. On the question of subletting of the premises by original tenant in favour of petitioner, it affirmed the finding of the trial court. However, it found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and tenants had changed the user of premises. Thus, they were liable to eviction. Aggrieved, present petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was nothing to show that petitioners had become owners of the property. In fact, there was dispute amongst them regarding ownership of the demised premises. According to him, finding of the Appellate Authority on the ground of change of user is absolutely unsustainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that a valid Will was executed by Mohinder Kaur in favour of respondent/landlords and property had been entered in their name on basis of same. There can, thus, be no dispute regarding the fact that respondents are landlords being owners of the property. Petitioner had shifted his residence to Panchkula and was running only a Chartered Accountant office in the premises. As the property was originally rented out for residential purpose, he had changed user thereof. Appellate Authority had rightly ordered ejectment.