BALDEV SAHAI Vs. CHARANJIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' revision petition whose application for ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlords-petitioners sought the ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the demised premises inter alia, on the ground that he had used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The allegations made in the application were that the premises, in question, were taken by him for the purposes of running a regular shop, but he started using the same as a godown and, thus, changed their user in violation of terms of the tenancy. The plea taken in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent was that the premises, in dispute, were taken on rent for the purposes of being used as a godown for mercantile goods and that he had been so using it since the year 1959, i.e., from the very inception of the tenancy vide rent-note dated September 23, 1959, Exhibit A1. Previous thereto, the premises were used as a godown by M/s Ganu Mal Jagan Nath of Morinda as a tenant. Since 1959, the said premises were being used as a godown by him. Chanan Ram was the owner of the disputed premises who died some where in the year 1973. He acquiesced in its user as a godown by accepting rent from him (the tenant) and by not objecting to its user as a godown. The learned Rent Controller found that the disputed premises were leased out as a shop, but the respondent had started using them as a godown without the written consent of the landlord and had, thus, changed their user which ws not permitted by law and he was, therefore, liable to be ejected therefrom. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the premises, in dispute, were used as a godown throughout and not a shop and, thus, there was no change of user thereof as alleged. As a result, the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion, that the learned Appellate Authority after discussing the entire evidence has given a firm finding that the demised premises were being used as a godown throughout and not as a shop and, thus, there was no change of user thereof. Primarily, this is a finding of fact which could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.