SEWA RAM Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlady Smt. Sushila Devi sought the ejectment of her tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that the premises were let out for the business of laundry whereas the tenant had started living therein and, thus, there was a change of user. The plea taken by the tenant in the written statement was that he was residing separate and the premises were being used for the purpose for which it were let out. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had failed to prove that he was residing anywhere else except in the demised premises. Thus, it was found that there was change of user as the premises were let out for the business of laundry whereas the tenant had started residing there. Ultimately, the eviction was ordered. 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 filed this petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. It has been found as a fact that the tenant had failed to prove that he was residing anywhere else but on the demised premises. He had taken up the plea that he was residing at Bindraban Road, Ludhiana, for the last eight or nine years but he was unable to tell the name of his landlord and the rent paid by him. Not only that, he had no receipt with him to prove that he was paying any rent for the alleged premises. In this view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.