JODHA RAM Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below. The landlord Hari Chand sought the ejectment of his tenant Jodha Ram from the house is dispute, marked red in the site plan Ex. A2, consisting of three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine, courtyard and a verandah, which was let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- vide rent note, dated 6th September, 1964 (Ex. A1). The ejectment was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the premises were let out for residential purposes whereas the tenant has changed the user as the premises were now being used for commercial purposes. The other grounds need not be mentioned because they were negatived by both the authorities below. With respect to the change of user, the landlord made the following allegations in the ejectment application contained in paras 9, 10 and 11 thereof :-

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the evidence on record it could not be held that there was any change of user. The premises were let out for residential purposes and the tenant was still living therein with his family, and that the stand taken by the landlord in the ejectment application that the tenant had shifted his residence has not been found in his favour by the authorities below. Thus, argued the learned counsel, since the tenant was still residing in the premises in dispute it could not be said that there was change of user. Moreover, the business carried on by the tenant in the name of Jagadhri Metal Trading Company was not of such a nature which required any customers to be coming and going to the premises in dispute nor any goods, etc., are stored on account of that business in premises. It is only a trading business in the sense that the tenant gets orders for supply and the said supply is directly made as per orders after getting the same from the market. It was further argued that the evidence produced by the tenant had not at all been considered by the Appellate Authority, and, thus, the findings, arrived at are vitiated. In any case, it was illegal and improper and could be interfered with u/s 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, it was argued. On the other hand, the respondent-landlord himself being an Advocate, appeared in person and argued that on appreciation of the entire evidence it had been concurrently found that the tenant had changed the user of the premises from residential to a commercial one, and that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this contention he referred to the latest Supreme Court judgment reported as Manick Chandra Nandy v. Debdas Nandy AIR 1986 SC 446.