VAS DEV Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant Ladha Ram from the shop, in dispute, which is three-storeyed situated in Ward No. 2, Panipat. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground of subletting by the tenant of Suraj Bhan, respondent No. 2 in the ejectment application, as well as on the grounds that the tenant had changed the user of the premises ; they were let out for running soda water business whereas now, he had started tea shop therein ; he had impaired the value and utility of the premises as he had removed the door of the main gate and had fitted a new door on the chabutra instead of fitting it on its original place and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation inasmuch as the karris of the roof on the second floor had drooped down and were likely to fall down any time. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these allegations were controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was guilty of change of user of the demised premises as they were let out for running soda water business whereas the tenant was carrying on the tea shop therein. It was also found that the tenant had impaired the value and utility as he had enclosed the chabutra on the ground floor of the demised premises and had shaped it into a shop. Thus, thereby the coming of natural light in the shop and the benefit and the frequent use of the chabutra had been stopped. It was further found that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On these grounds, the eviction order was passed. It may be made clear here that the application for eviction of the tenant was filed on January 30, 1975. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding's of the Rent Controller on all the three counts and, thus, the eviction order passed against the tenant was confirmed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition.