KAILASH CHAND Vs. ANAND SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Kailash Chand rented out a piece of vacant land situated in Palwal, District Faridabad to respondent Anand Sarup. He thereafter sought the eviction of the respondent primarily on two grounds firstly, that the petitioner required the premises for his own use and occupation and, secondly, that the respondent-tenant had changed the user of the rented premises from coal business to a furniture house. Non-payment of arrears of rent was also taken up as a ground for eviction. The Rent Controller found all the issues against the petitioner and dismissed the ejectment application vide order dated 31st October, 1979, holding that the petitioner had failed to prove any of the grounds set up by him for the ejectment of the respondent from the property in dispute. The findings of the Rent Controller were affirmed by the appellate authority after an elaborate discussion on the evidence. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, present petition has been filed.

(2.) MR. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has re-agitated the two points, referred to above. Elaborating them he has urged that from the evidence it had been proved that the appellant required the land for his own use and occupation as he wished to start a business thereon. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to the finding recorded by the appellate in para 11 of its judgment. I have heard the learned counsel and find that there is no merit in this submission. It is common evidence of the appellant himself and that of his witnesses that he is in possession of some other land towards the east of the plot in dispute, which is lying vacant, as also some land on the Mai Godam road and in Patti Khail, which is in the locality where the land in dispute is situated. From the evidence, it is crystal clear that he is in possession of plots or land, which is available to him for running his business and as such, he is unable to satisfy the ingredients of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act.

(3.) THE second ground urged by Mr. Arun Jain is that as per rent note executed (Ext. P. 1) in 1968, the rented land was to be used only for running a coal business and as the respondents had started a furniture business on it, there had been a change of user. Mr. Hemant Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent has however, drawn my attention to the rent note Ext. P-l and as per terms of the rent note, the land was taken for the purpose of running business of a tall Kola etc. He has also urged that the appellate authority had found that though the rent note had been executed in 1968 yet the land had been taken before that date and as such, keeping in view the terms of the rent note it could not be conclusively said that the plot in question had been let out only for the purpose of tall coal, at the initial stage. I have considered the arguments from this aspect as well and find that the stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court Mohal Lalv. Jai Bhagwan, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R. 670 (S. C.) and Siri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Ors. v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1253 that finding of fact recorded by the authorities under the Rent Act should not be lightly interfered with and this Court, sitting on the revisional side, must refrain from re-appraising the evidence. Applying the aforesaid principle, I am of the view that findings of the authorities below must not be interfered with. As already admitted by the parties, the tenanted premises were let out for running a tall coal etc. and as the terms of the rent note were vague, some latitude must be given to the respondents.