LAKHI RAM Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the Act), for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises, description of which was given in their application. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non- payment of rent, that the shop, in dispute, was required by the respondents for their personal use and also that the petitioner-tenant was guilty of using the shop for the purpose other than the one for which it was rented out to him. Petitioner controverted the averments made by the respondents-landlords. Rent Controller gave opportunity to both of them to lead evidence and on appraisal thereof, ordered ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the shop was required by the respondents for their personal use and also that the petitioner was guilty of change of user, which has resulted into causing nuisance to the respondents. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) SO far as relationship between the parties is concerned, the same is not in dispute. Appellate authority below on appraisal of evidence, has observed thus :-

(3.) CONTENTION of counsel for the petitioner that the Courts were wrong in ordering ejectment, as once the shop has been rented out for the commercial purposes, the same would not have been got vacated for any other use. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Attar Singh v. Inder Kumar, 1967 PLR 83. This Court feels that the ratio of judgment, referred to above, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, property, in dispute, was open plot, which was let out for the purpose of business and trade. By taking note of the same, it was held that the tenant is saved from eviction unless the landlord requires the land, in dispute, for the same purpose, for which, it was rented out. In the present case, shop, in dispute, is a part and parcel of residential building. No permission, as is necessary, under Section 11 of the Act, was obtained to convert the same into a commercial building. By taking note of number of family members of the respondents, it was observed by the Courts below that the premises, in dispute, was needed for their personal use. In the alternative, it was also observed that in case, it is not possible to use the shop, for any other purposes than the business, the respondents- landlords had been successful to prove that in that event, the shop, in dispute, is required by them to start business therein. Similarly, ratio of the judgment in State Bank of Patiala v. S. Zulzuaoar Singh Virk and others, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 670 : 2003(3) Latest Judicial Reports 37, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, it has come on record that in the year 1977, original building was demolished and then, it was reconstructed as a commercial building. As discussed earlier, facts of the present case are altogether different, as such, no benefit of ratio of the judgment, in State Bank of Patiala's case (supra) can be given to the petitioner. No case is made out for interference in pure findings of facts, as the counsel for the petitioner has failed to raise any substantial question of law. Revision dismissed.