MEHTA BALDEV DUTT Vs. PURAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the decision of the Appellate Authority reversing on appeal the decision of the Rent Controller allowing the landlord's application for eviction of the tenant. Mehta Baldev Dutt rented the premises in dispute to Puran Singh under a rent note Exhibit A/1 dated 25th April, 1964, at a monthly rent of Rs. 85. In the rent note, it was specifically stated that the shop is being rented out for tailoring business. Eviction of the tenant was sought on a number of grounds, out of which only two survive, namely, (i) that the tenant had sub-let the premises to Tarlok Singh, Charan Singh and Piara Singh, and (ii) that the tenant is using the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let out.

(2.) The Rent Controller, Amritsar, found that the tenant had sub-let the premises as well as had put them to use other than for which they were rented out. In this view of the matter, he ordered the eviction of the tenant. An appeal was filed against this decision to the appellate authority. The appellate authority reversed the decision on grounds which are wholly untenable if not perverse. It took the view that there was no sub-letting to Tarlok Singh, Charan Singh and Piara Singh, and that the tenant had not used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they had been let out. The landlord being dissatisfied with this decision has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) Mr. J.N. Kaushal, learned counsel for the landlord, contended that the purpose for which the premises were rented out was tailoring business. This business must be carried on with sewing machines either manually operated or electrically operated, and if with the machines which were being electrically operated, embroidery was done as part of the tailoring business, there would be no ground to claim eviction of the tenant on the basis of change of user. But he contends that instead of the embroidery work being ancillary to the tailoring business, the tenant has started using the premises mainly for the embroidery business. He has installed embroidery machines which are electrically operated i.e. electric motors operate those machines and one of the so-called sub-tenant, Tarlok Singh was challenged for working the same without a licence. It is thus contended that in the instant case there is a change of user. The learned counsel for the petitioner for the above contention relies on Telu Ram v. Om Parkash Garg, 1971 73 PunLR 1. This is a Division Bench decision and binds me. It fully applies to the facts of the present case. In Telu Ram's case learned Judges relied on a decision of Daulat, J. In Civil Revision No. 645 of 1961 (Balwant Singh v. Brij Mohan) dated 16th March, 1962, wherein the learned Judge observed that, "where the premises were let out for fixing handlooms but later on power-looms are fixed, it would amount to the user of the premises for a purpose different from the one for which the same were leased." These observations equally apply to the present case. The premises were rented out for tailoring business and not for embroidery business. The embroidery work is not being done as a part of tailoring business but as a totally independent business. In this conclusion, I need only refer to the pleadings of the parties which clinch the matter. In paragraph 3(b) of the eviction application, the allegations of the petitioner were :-