CHHOTEY LAL Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR ALIAS RAJINDER PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two petitions, namely Civil Revision No. 702 of 1985 and Civil Revision No. 1288 of 1986. Both the cases have arisen between the same parties. The first petition i.e. Civil Revision No. 702 of 1985 is the result of order of ejectment passed by both the Courts below. The tenant-petitioner Chhote Lal (now represented by his LRs) has filed the Ist petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act'). In that petition challenge is to concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-petitioner was liable to be evicted from the demised shop which was let out to him for commercial purpose on the ground that he started using the demised shop for the purpose of his residence as he started living there with nine members of his family. The Rent Controller in his order dated 29.1.1981 has also found merit in the other ground also, which was to the effect that there was change of user by the tenant-petitioner as he converted tailoring business to the dry-cleaning business. However, the Appellate Authority rejected the afore-mentioned grounds in its judgment dated 8.2.1985.

(2.) IN the second case, the Rent Controller has ordered issuance of warrants of possession in respect of the demised shop after the tenant-petitioner had committed default in making payment of arrears of rent in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 28.2.1985 in Civil Revision No. 702 of 1985, whereby direction was issued to the tenant-petitioner to pay all the arrears of rent within a fortnight and in future it was to pay/deposit the rent on 10th of every month. 1st Petition

(3.) ON an appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner, the Appellate Authority accepted his plea that since there was no rent note executed between the parties, it could not be held that the use of demised shop was confined to tailoring business alone although the findings of the Rent Controller to the effect that there was change in business were accepted. However, the Appellate Authority accepted the view of the Rent Controller to the effect that the demised shop was rented out only for commercial purpose and the tenant- petitioner had started using the same for the residential purpose as nine members of the family of the tenant-petitioner were living there. On the basis of the findings the tenant-petitioner was ordered to be evicted. The report of the Local Commissioner, Shri Jagdish Chander, Advocate, Exhibit AW12/1, along with enclosures Exhibits AW12/2 to AW12/12, has been relied upon. The Local Commissioner who visited the demised shop on 2.4.1976 had discovered various articles at the demised shop which would establish that a fulfleged house was being run at the back portion. The Local Commissioner had conducted the proceedings in the presence of the parties and their respective counsel. Both the Courts below have also placed reliance on Exhibit A-6 which is a certified copy of Form-D submitted by the tenant-petitioner for obtaining a ration-card, wherein the place of his residence has been given as House No. DE-49 which is the municipal number allotted to the demised shop. The ration-card was prepared for nine members, namely, Chhotey Lal, his wife, his son Basant Kumar and son's wife, his daughter Ashok Kumari and three sons and one grand-son.