SUDERSHAN KUMARI Vs. ANAND KUMAR KHEMKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlady the premises, in dispute, were let out to M/s. Khemke Traders vide rent note dated December 14, 1963, Exhibit A-2, for a period of two months for parking car at the rate of Rs. 37.50 per month with effect from January 1, 1964. After the expiry of the said period of two months, M/s. Khemka Traders became the statutory tenants. Their ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the building had became unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the tenant has changed the user thereof as the same was let out for parking car whereas now it was being used as a godown, they had sublet to Anand Kumar Khemke without her written consent and that they had committed such acts as were likely to impair its value and utility. In the written statement filed on behalf of Anand Kumar Khemke it was pleaded that the premises, in question, where previously owned by Surinder Kumar and brothers and the firm Manmad Chand Sham Sunder Lal was the tenant under the previous owners and was paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 32.50 per month. Later on, the premises were sold by the said owners to the landlady Sudarshan Kumari in the year 1963. The firm Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal continued to be the tenant under the landlady at the same rent and Parsotham Kumar, the husband of the landlady, had been receiving rent from the said firm for the premises, in dispute. Lateron, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 37.50 per month. The rent at the enhanced rate was paid by the said firm to the landlady. M/s. Khemke Traders never took the premises on rent and that it was never the tenant under the landlady. As a matter of fact, there was no firm of the aforesaid name. In fact, the firm M/s Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal was the only tenant on the premises in dispute. All the other allegations made in the ejectment application were controverted. The learned Rent Controller negatived all the contention raised on behalf of the landlady except the one relating to the change of user of the demised premises by the tenant without her written consent. According to the Rent Controller, the premises, in question were let out vide rent note Exhibit A-2 for parking car whereas the same were being used as a godown. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal before the Appellate Authority only the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of change of user of the demise premises was contested. The other finding recorded by the Rent Controller against the landlady were not challenged. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that, in fact, the tenant on the premises, in dispute, was the firm M/s. Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal and that the said firm had been using the same as a godown. It was also held that the rent note, Exhibit A-2, was merely a paper transaction and was never acted upon. Under the circumstances, there was no change or user, as alleged. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.