DEVI CHAND KAKAR Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the respondent was set aside.

(2.) THE premises, in dispute consisted of a room and the ahata. They were rented out to the respondent wide rent note dated January 15, 1958, Exhibit A.4. The purpose for which the premises were let out is not given in the said rent note. The landlord filed the ejectment application on August 26, 1969, and sought the eviction of the tenant inter alia on the grounds that the building was let out for residential purposes, but the respondent was using it for commercial and business purposes and he had, thus changed the user thereof. He had obtained a water connection and had, thus, materially impaired the value and utility of the building. Alleging the building to be a residential one, the landlord also alleged that he required the same for his own use and occupation. In the written statement, the tenant admitted the tenancy, but denied that he had taken the premises for residential purposes. It was also averred that even prior to the inception of the tenancy, the premises were being used as a dairy by Ajudhaya Parkash in partnership with Amar Nath, respondent, and, thus, the building was a non-residential one. Therefore, it was not open to the landlord to eject the tenant for personal occupation. The other allegations of the petitioner were also denied. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had succeeded in providing that the premises, in dispute, were let out to the tenant for residential purposes and that later on, the tenant had converted them for business purposes. The Rent Controller also found that the respondent had made unauthorised construction without the consent, in writing, of the landlord and as such on this ground as well, the tenant was liable to be ejected from the premises. Consequently, the order of the ejectment was passed against him. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed these findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that a consideration of the evidence showed that the premises had been used for a dairy even from the time prior to the inception of the tenancy and that there was no evidence that they were used for residence by the respondent and, therefore, the tenancy was for running a dairy which is a commercial business. So, the premises were not given for a residential purpose, as alleged by the landlord. It was also found that a construction of a small kotha upon the vacant land would be for the proper use of the premises and that the petitioner had not stated the manner or the extent to which there had been the impairment of either the value or the utility of the premises. As a result, the eviction petition was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the premises, in dispute, were surrounded by residential buildings and under the circumstances, the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the premises, in dispute, were given for residential purposes only. It was alleged that the tenant converted its user into a dairy. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf was right and the Appellate Authority has reversed that finding arbitrarily and without any cogent reason.