JAGDISH LAL Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) HANS Raj, landlord, sought the ejectment of the tenant Jagdish Lal from the shop, in dispute, on the grounds of the change of user and impairing materially its value and utility. It was alleged in the eviction application that the shop, in dispute, was let out for carrying on the business of a ration depot, but the tenant had installed a flour-mill (chaki) and a grinding machine there and had, thus changed its user without the consent of the landlord and that as a result, he had materially impaired the value and utility thereof. In the written statement, it was pleaded that right from the inception of the tenancy, the tenant had installed one grinder for atta and another grinder for spices. He never installed a chakki or a four-mill in the demised premises. It was denied that he had materially impaired the value or utility thereof by the alleged installations. It was also pleaded by him that no specific purpose of the business was stipulated while executing the rent note, Exhibit A.W. 4/B and therefore, the question of change of user of the premises did not arise. The Rent Controller found that the tenant had put the premises, in dispute, for a use other than the one for which they were rented out, i.e., they were rented out for running a shop whereas the tenant had installed an atta chakki therein which was run by a 15-horse power electric motor. It was also found that the value and utility thereof had been materially impaired by him by installing the said machine. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of the change of user. On the question of materially impairing the value and utility thereof, the finding of the Rent Controller was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case law cited at the bar.