INDER SINGH Vs. KALU RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by a landlord who has failed to obtain an order for the ejectment of his tenant both before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THERE were a number of grounds on which ejectment was sought including non -payment of rent and subletting, but only two have now been raised before me, conversion of user and alleged encroachment. The premises in dispute consist of a shop with a platform and a back room in addition to the room actually used for business. On the former point both the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority have found that Kalu Ram originally leased the shop for the purpose of carrying on his trade, which is that of a barber, but that while he still carried on his trade in the front part of the premises he had been living with his family in the back part since a time before the premises were purchased by the present landlord Inder Singh from the previous owner, under whom Kalu Ram became a tenant. The finding, therefore was, though it does not appear to have been very clearly expressed, that there had been no conversion of user.

(3.) The question which arises is therefore whether if a tenant takes a shop for purposes of his trade, and, while still carrying on his trade in part of the premises, uses part of them for residential purposes, he can be said to have 'used the building' for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. I am inclined to take the view that such a partial conversion is not covered by the provisions of the Act and I derive support for this view from the different way in which clauses (a) and (b) of section 13(2)(ii) have been phrased. Clause (a) reads "transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building 0r rented land or any portion thereof", while the words "or any portion thereof" do not appear in clause (b). Obviously the omission is deliberate, and in my opinion the ejectment was rightly refused on this ground.