DHARAM RAJ Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Where from the very inception of the tenancy, premises described as 'shops' in the rent note, are used, to the knowledge, though without the written consent of the landlord, as a godown or workshop, would this render the tenant immune from ejectment on the ground of change of user ? Herein lies the controversy, in this reference.

(2.) The other and ancilliary point, being whether in the context of the demised premises, being used as godown and workshop from very beginning, their description as 'shops' in the rent note is not to be taken to be sacrosanct ?

(3.) In the case here, the rent note described the demised premises as 'shops'. These premises were let out to two different tenants, one used it as a godown and the other as a workshop for baking bamboos and had for that purpose also installed a bhatti. The Rent Controller held that this amounted to change of user and ordered the ejectment of the tenants. The Appellate Authority, on the other hand, came to a different conclusion, namely, that as the demised premises were being used from the very beginning of the tenancy as godown and workshop respectively, there was no change of user.