FIRM HIMALAYAN TRADERS Vs. NARAIN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts are not in dispute. The rent note was executed on August 13, 1964, and under it the applicant -firm Himalayan Traders rented the demised premises for its own residence. The fact is that no partner of the applicant -firm has ever resided in those premises. Its employees or others visiting it for business purposes have been residing there. One room of the premises has been used as a godown.

(2.) THE Rent Controller found that the demised premises were used by the tenant -firm for the purpose for which the same were taken on rent, thus negativing the claim of the landlord that it had used it for a purpose other than that for which it was leased within section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1919). On appeal the Appellate Authority has taken a contrary view and it has come to the conclusion that the landlord is entitled to eject the tenant -firm under the very provisions on two grounds: (a) that part of the demised premises, that is to say, one room, has been used as a godown, a purpose for which the demised premises were not let, and (b) that, although the demised premises have been used for residential purpose, a purpose for which the same were let, but not for the residence of the persons for whom the lease of the same was obtained, that is to say, not for the residence of the partners of the tenant -firm, but for the residence of its servants and other visitors. It is on this ground that the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and has ordered the ejectment of the tenant -firm from the demised premises.

(3.) THE only aspect of the matter that is preyed by the learned counsel for the landlord is that according to the rent note the demised premises were let to the tenant -firm for its own residence, which means in substance for the residence of its partners. The fact has been that the same has been used for the residence of its employees and some persons visiting it in connection with its business. At the same time, the fact remains that the premises have been used for the purpose for which the same were leased, that is to say, they were leased for residential purpose and have been used for residential purpose. The ground in section 13(2) (ii) (b) cannot be stretched to this that in a case like the present partners must themselves reside in the premises and nobody connected with their firm can do so and if that happens it will be not a user for purposes for which the demised premises were leased. This is not correct. The demised premises were leased for residential purpose and the same have been used for this purpose. So the approach of the Rent Controller was the correct approach.