PARKASH CHANDER Vs. BHIM SAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord Parkash Chander sought the ejectment of his tenant from the shop in dispute, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant was using the premises for the purpose other thant the one for which it had been let out to him. According to the landlord, the shop in dispute was let out for the purpose of selling scarves. Thereafter, the business was changed to sale of shoes, and now the tenant is using the premises for sarafa (jewellery trade) without the consent of the landlord. The tenant denied the said allegations and pleaded that the shop had been let out for business or trade, and not for any specific trade. The learned Rent Controller found that there was nothing on the record to show that the landlord had let out the premises for any specific trade. Since the tenant had been carrying on his business in the demised premises did not amount to change of user as such. As a result of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller, and, thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord had filed this petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. The learned-petitioner has admitted that the rent note had been reduced in writing. Surprisingly enough in spite of that, the same was not produced by the landlord. This itself goes against the landlord to prove that the premises had been let out for a specific trade or business. In the circumstances, I do not find any impropriety or illegality with the concurrent findings of the parties below. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.