SIKANDAR LAL Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference to the Full Bench, the significant question that now services for adjudication may be formulated in the terms following:-

(2.) The facts relevant to the aforesaid issue may be noticed with relative brevity. Amrit Lal landlord respondent had preferred the application for ejectment of the tenant from premises on the ground that he had taken the same on lease for the specific purpose of carrying on the trade of Khaddis (hand-looms) for a period of 11 months after which he was in occupation as a statutory tenant. It was alleged inter alia that the tenant had now changed the user of the premises without the consent of the landlord in writing or otherwise and further that he had made certain constructions without the consent in writing or otherwise of the landlord and thereby impugned the value and utility thereof materially.

(3.) In contesting the aforesaid petition, the tenant controverted the allegations and took up the plea that as originally he had installed and continued to carry on the business of handlooms and had merely added a small carding machine by which the thread is extracted from the old cloth which is a part of the business of handloom industry. It was further denied that any construction had been made so as to impair the value and utility of the premises.