GURDIAL SINGH Vs. MADAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 240 and 3032 of 1980 as common question arise therein.

(2.) GURDIAL Singh, landlord, sought ejectment of Madan Mohan from two separate premises by filing two separate applications on various grounds but the main ground which survives for consideration at the revisional stage is whether the tenant has changed the user of the premises from residential to non-residential. Originally, Parma Nand was the tenant who died in the year 1961. From the very beginning of the tenancy till his death, Parma Nand carried on the retail and wholesale business of Tobacco in both the premises. After his death, his three sons, namely Madan Mohan, Ramesh Kumar and Chaman Lal, continued the business as statutory tenants. However, only Madan Mohan was impleaded as the tenant for the ejectment probably because in the year 1969, Madan Mohan contested the petition and after controverting all the allegations, pleaded that the ejectment application was not competent as the other two statutory tenants, namely his brothers Ramesh Kumar and Chaman Lal, were not impleaded. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment in both the cases but on Madan Mohan's appeal, the orders of ejectment were set aside by the appellate Authority. These are revisions by the landlord.

(3.) THE main argument raised by the learned counsel for the landlord was that in the rent note, which was executed by Madan Mohan after the death of his father, it was clearly mentioned that the house was being let out for residential purpose. Factually, this position is correct. But as already noticed, Parma Nand was the original tenant who carried on the business of Tobacco in the premises in dispute which business was carried on by his three sons after his death. Therefore, the tenancy still continues. Mere execution of rent note by Madan Mohan would not amount to termination of the original tenancy which was inherited by the three sons. Moreover, Madan Mohan has explained that they had very good relations with the landlord and whenever he used to bring fresh rent notes for his signature he signed them without reading the same. If Madan Mohan alone had been the tenant, then possible this explanation may not have been accepted by the Appellate Authority but since the tenancy was inherited by the three sons of the original tenant Parmanand whether this explanation is accepted or not, make no difference in the ultimate decision of the case. Accordingly, the finding of the Appellate Authority that there is not change of user is unassailable.