K. CHARLES Vs. AJUDHIA PARSHAD CHAUDHRI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) AJUDHIA Parshad, landlord, filed the ejectment application against his tenant Mrs. K. Charles from the house, in dispute, on the ground that the same was let out for residential purpose whereas the tenant had started running a school therein. And, thus, there was a change of user thereof. Since the landlord himself was posted outside, he asked his cousin sister Miss. K. Dutta, respondent No. 2, who had been residing in the house which is adjacent to the house, in dispute, to take care thereof and to give the same on rent to anybody whom she thought fit. Thus, according to the landlord, the said house was rented out by his cousin sister Miss K. Dutta to the tenant vide rent note dated October 12, 1967, Exhibit A. 1, at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month for residential purpose. Later on, the tenant started a regular school therein after her retirement from the Convent and Mary School, Ambala Cantt. and shifted her residence to somewhere else though earlier, she was residing in the premises, in dispute. The ejectment application was filed on August 25, 1977. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, she admitted that she took the premises on rent from Miss K. Dutta on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- but also pleaded that the premises were taken on rent for running an Evening School and not for residential purpose. Since the year 1967, she had been running a school therein. She denied that she had executed any rent note dated October 12, 1967. Exhibit A.1, in favour of Miss K. Dutta. According to her, the rent note was a false and fabricated document. She had been residing in the premises in question. to perform her duties as a teacher and after the year 1973, when she retired from the school, she started running the school in the morning hours there. The learned Rent Controller held that the disputed premises were initially taken on rent by the tenant for her residence alone, but from the year 1973, she had started running a regular school therein. Thus, it amounted to the change of user thereof. On that ground alone the eviction order was passed against the tenant. The other grounds of eviction taken by the landlord did not find favour with the Rent Controller. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant 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.