JAGDISH CHAND Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by the landlord under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenges concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-respondent has not indulged in change of use of the demised shop as envisaged by Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. Both the Courts have found that the change of business from cloth merchant to sale of note- books and stationery items etc. would not amount to change of user within the meaning of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act especially when the rent note describing the purpose of letting out the demised shop has not been held admissible in evidence for want of registration.

(2.) THE controversy although is legal, yet few facts are necessary for focusing the issue raised. The landlord-petitioner filed an ejectment petition being File No. 19 dated 10.3.1998 claiming that the tenant-respondent took the demised shop on rent from him for setting up his cloth business on a yearly rent of Rs. 16,000/- along with house tax besides other charges for a period of one year. A rent note was also executed by the tenant-respondent in favour of the landlord-petitioner. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the shop was originally taken on rent by the tenant-respondent for setting up the cloth business and he has started manufacturing note-books by installing heavy machinery in the demised shop under the name and style of 'Sumit Copy Manufacturers'. The stand taken by the tenant-respondent in his reply was that he never agreed for payment of house tax over and above the rent at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per year. He also denied that the demised shop was hired only for cloth business by further asserting that it was hired for running business. It was claimed that the tenant-respondent has started stationery business three years prior to the filing of the petition and no machinery for manufacturing the note-books has been installed. He has explained that the machinery has been installed for manufacturing the note- books at his residence. The execution of the rent note has also been denied asserting that the landlord-petitioner had obtained the signatures of the tenant-respondent on blank papers and has fabricated the same.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority, however, found that the non-registration of rent note Mark 'A-2' would disqualify the document being read in evidence. Referring to Section 17 of 1908 Act and Section 107 of 1882 Act, the Appellate Authority has held as under :-