JUGAL KISHORE Vs. DHARMANDRA KUMAR KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed on behalf of tenants against whom order of ejectment from the shop in dispute has been passed by both the authorities below. It is the common case of the parties that the tenancy in favour of the petitioners In respect of the demised premises was created vide lease deed dated 24th April, 1967, certified copy of which is Ext. A-1, The present application for ejectment was filed on 12th Dec., 1969, inter alia on the grounds that the tenants. without written consent of the landlord, used the building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased; that they were keeping the building closed and have committed such acts as were likely to impair the value and utility thereof. The ejectment application was contested on behalf of the tenants-petitioners on the ground that the premises were let for business purposes and the same is being carried on therein. The other allegations were also denied. The Rent Controller, under Issue No. 2. came to the conclusion that the tenants have converted the shop into a godown and have thus rendered themselves liable for ejectment. The other issue as to whether the tenants have kept the premises closed for about a year prior to the institution of the ejectment application as alleged, was also found In favour of the landlord. As a result of these two findings, eviction order was passed against the tenants-petitioners. In appeal. the learned appellate authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller as to the change of user of the premises in dispute from the shop to a godown, but reversed the finding of the trial Court an the other issue. Ultimately the order of the Rent Controller passed in favour of the landlord was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have come up in revision In this Court.

(2.) The only question to be determined in this petition in whether the tenants are liable to ejectment on the ground that they have changed the use of the premises for the purposes it was rented out, vide lease deed dated 24th April, 1967. Ext. A-1. It may be stated at the outset that the Rent Controller gave the finding to the effect that "admittedly the respondents (tenants) have constructed their own shop in the same Bazar and their main business is carried out in that shop. Jugal Kishore respondent himself stated that as compared to the disputed building more business is carried out by them in their own shop. Moreover. the telephone connection was also got shifted from the disputed shop by the respondents to their own shop in Dec., 67, as is clear from the statement of Vijay Kumar Bakshi. A, W. 7. Clerk in the office of the SDO (Telephone), The consumption of electricity also stopped almost as is clear from the statement of Jagdamba Parshad, Meter Reader, A. W. 8." All this evidence was not challenged before the Appellate Court. It has been observed in para 15 of the judgment of the Appellate Court that, "it would be appropriate to place on re-cord that no attempt whatsoever was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the finding of the learned Rent Controller insofar as the change of user of the premises from running a shop proper to that of a godown, was concerned and rightly because there was, ample oral as well as telling circumstantial evidence including in the form of inspection note dt. 16-1-1976 of District Rent Controller and the non-consumption of electricity, shifting of telephone connection from the demised premises; and their own shop having been built by the appellants for carrying on that very business in the same locality, which unmistakably pointed to an inference that the demised premises have been in use 'godown' since before the filing of the ejectment petition in the year 1969. The learned Rent Controller hap made an elaborate discussion with regard to the evidence on record on that fact In issue and I see absolutely no reason to differ with that. The only question that falls for determination is whether the change of user from shop to godown rendered the ten-tints liable for ejectment."

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to assail the said findings of the two authorities below and contended that they did challenge the findings of the Rent Controller before the appellate authority. However, in view of the said observations made by the appellate authority, the petitioners cannot be allowed to assail the concurrent findings of the two authorities below in this revision petition.