RAM DAYAL Vs. RAM CHARAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent sought the ejectment of the tenant petitioner from the shop in dispute inter alia on the ground that the shop was let out for the purpose of running hotel but the tenant has changed the user and started the business of sale and repairs of cycles and secondly the tenant has demolished the chambers which the landlord got constructed in the shop resulting in the impairment of the value and utility of the shop materially. These allegations were seriously contested by the tenant. It was denied that the original letting was for the purpose of Hotel or that he has changed the user of the demised premises and that the value and utility of the disputed shop were materially impaired. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found under issue No. 5 that the tenant had used the disputed building for the purpose other than for which it was leased out because the premises were let out for running a Hotel whereas admittedly the tenant was carrying on the business of sale and repairs of cycles. Under issue No. 6 it was further found that the cabins did exist in the disputed premises when it was leased out to the tenant and since the cabins no longer exist in the shop the obvious conclusion was that they had been demolished by the tenant. Thus it was observed that it did not require great erudition to say that the demolition of cabins in the shop materially impaired the value and utility. As a result of these findings, the order of eviction against the tenant was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order of eviction. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it had been found that the shop in dispute was rented out for the purpose of running Hotel and since now the tenant is doing the business of cycle this has amounted to change of user and he was thus liable for ejectment. It was further contended that it had been found as a fact that the utility and value of the demised premises had been materially impaired and this being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he referred to Som Nath v. Gian Chand and ors. 1977(2) R.C.R. 365 and Gurdev Singh v. Om Parkash and others, 1977(2) R.L.R. 142.