KESHO DASS Vs. CHANDER BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS may be read in continuation of my order, dated 7th of November, 1985. In the first para of the aforesaid order the date of rent note Exhibit A. 1 has been typed as 2.6.1963. The correct date is 2.6.1953.

(2.) THE report o the Rent Controller has been received which is in favour of the landlord. It has been observed in the report that manufacturing activity of trunks was started after a few years of inception of the tenancy apart from carrying on the original business of sale of trunks and that the manufacturing process amounted to change of user as a manufacturing works was the dominant use.

(3.) THE landlord sought ejectment on one of the pleas of the change of user of the premises. He pleaded that he had given the shop for sale of trunks but the tenant started manufacturing the trunks as well which amounted to change of user. The case of the tenant in defence was that right from the inception of the tenancy in 1953 he had been carrying on the same process i.e. after manufacturing trunks he sold the same in the premises in dispute. When the case was heared on 7th November, 1985, it was considered just and proper to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence whether the sale of trunks was the dominant purpose or not whether major part of the premises was used for that purpose. It is not disputed that the onus to prove ground of ejectment is on the landlord and by the remand order he got another opportunity to prove that the change of user, if any, was such on which order of ejectment could be passed against the tenant. This could be done only after the landlord was able to prove that in major part of the premises process of the manufacturing of trunks was being carried on and that the dominant purpose for which the premises were put to use was for manufacture of trunks and not for sale. If landlord fails to prove it then he is to fails and it cannot be argued that the tenant failed to establish his defence and, therefore, he should lose the case.