HARBANS SINGH Vs. PARSHOTAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) PARSHOTAM Lal, landlord, sought the ejectment of the tenant Harbans Singh, from the tenanted premises claimed to be residential house as mentioned in the rent note, Exhibit A.1, inter alia on the grounds that he bonafide required them for his own use and occupation and that the tenant had started using the same for commercial purposes while the same were let out for residence. In his written statement, the tenant denied the said allegations. It was pleaded by him that the premises were let out for doing business and that from the very inception of the tenancy, he was carrying on carpentry work, therein. Since the premises were let out for business purposes, the question of his ejectment on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord thereto, did not arise. The Rent Controller found that the landlord bonafide required the premises, for his personal use and occupation and that the tenant was guilty of their change of user from residential to commercial. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed in favour of the landlord. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order ejecting the tenant from the demised premises. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.