K R VERMA Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller, and the order of the learned. Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, on the ground of change of user. The demised premises is a portion, situated at the back side of shop-cum office No. 149, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the demised premises was rented out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Respondent- land lord filed ejectment petition on the ground of arrears of rent and the change of user. Since the arrears of rent were paid, the said ground did not survive. However, the ejectment order was passed on the ground of change of user.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner never changed the user of the demised premises. The tenancy of the petitioner was under the name and style of Verma Motor Garage since its inception. There is not even an averment in the petition nor any evidence has been led as to for what purpose the premises was let out. The only averment made in the petition is that shop-cum-office is meant for general trade and the petitioner has set up motor garage, which does not amount to change of user. Learned counsel further argued that in another ejectment petition filed by respondent- landlord, findings of the Rent Controller are that petitioner was not the sub-tenant. He was running the business of motor garage and in the year 1978 he started the work of denting and painting, but could not run that business, and therefore, started running the motor garage from the very inception. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was in the knowledge of the landlord that petitioner was running the business of motor garage since the very inception and, therefore, he cannot take the plea that there is any change of user.