(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed in appeal.
(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of Om Parkash tenant from the premises, in dispute, which consist of a shop inter alia on the ground that the same were taken on rent by the tenant for punsari business, but he had started selling shoes there and, thus, there was change of user thereof. In the written statement, it was pleaded on behalf of the tenant that there was no change of the purpose for which the premises were taken on rent. The commodity in which the business is being carried on by him in the demised premises is included in the purpose for which they were taken on rent. No replication was filed to the said written statement on behalf of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had been using the premises for the purpose for which the same were not leased out to him. According to the learned Rent Controller the punsari business did not include the selling of shoes also in the demised premises. According to the Rent Controller, the oral statements of the witnesses that the tenant had been carrying on the business of selling shoes also along with other goods could not be accepted because the oral statements of the businesses cannot change the dictionary meaning of the word, 'pansari'. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and held that by switching over to the sale of shoes from the sale of grocer article, the tenant had not changed the user of the premises and, thus, the landlord was not entitled to eject the tenant on that ground. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside and the eviction application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.