RAJ RANI Vs. SANTOSH AWASTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON January 11, 1983, Smt. Santosh Awasthi, respondent-landlady filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, for ejectment of Shri Sat Pal, tenant, from shop-cum-flat No. 15, Sector 22, Chandigarh (for short' SCF' ). The grounds for eviction were:

(2.) THE tenant contested the grounds of eviction and denied the allegations made in the petition by the landlady. However, the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 750/- per mensem were tendered on the first date of hearing. The learned Rent Controller after holding that the rate of rent was Rs. 750/- per mensem came to the conclusion that the tender of the arrears of rent made on the first date of hearing was valid and, therefore, the first ground of ejectment did not subsist. However, the other grounds on which the ejectment was sought for were held to be proved and the ejectment of the tenant from the S. C. F. was ordered. The tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority upset the findings of the Rent Controller on grounds (ii) and (iii) i. e. subletting and material alterations impairing the value and utility of the property but upheld the ejectment on the ground (iv) i. e. change of user of the residential portion for commercial purposes. The tenant has come up in the present revision petition. The landlady has also filed a separate Civil Revision Petition No. 324 of 1989 challenging the order of the Appellate Authority regarding the findings on grounds No. (ii) and (iii) above. It may be observed here that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, tenant Sat Pal had died and his legal representatives were brought on record and the present revision petition has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Sat Pal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner took me through the evidence to substantiate his submission that the findings of the authorities below regarding the change of user cannot be sustained. I am of the view that two authorities under the Act having already applied their mind to the finding of fact regarding the change of user by the tenant, there seems to be no occasion to reconsider the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. In the revision petition, this Court Under Section 15 of the Act would not reappreciate the evidence. However, I find from the perusal of the evidence including the statement of the tenant himself that the finding of fact regarding the change of user is well based. The tenant had admitted in his statement that he has an office-cum-retiring room on the Ist floor and in the cross-examination he also admitted that some stock was lying on the first floor. He further stated that initially, he was staying in the residential portion of the S. C. F. but later on had shifted his residence to a house in Sector 21. a photograph Ex. A-7 was also produced by the landlady to show that in front of the shop portion of the S. C. F. , the sign board 'paul Medical Store' was there and another board on the top floor outside the Barasati portion in the name of Goel Pharma Distributors had been fixed and the tenant was running the business of Goel Pharma Distributors. The tenant further admitted in his cross-examination that the drug licence in the name of Goel Pharma Distributor is of Barsati floor. It was also admitted by Harbans Lal (RW3) witness of the tenant that the family of Sat Pal never resided in the premises in question. Gurdeep Singh (RW5), Drug Inspector, stated that the respondent-tenant was carrying on the business of Chemist on the ground floor of the S. C. F. and it was so mentioned in the application for obtaining licence. M/s Goyal Pharma Distributors are carrying on the business on the first floor and he had inspected the premises in question at least four-five times. The premises were inspected in 1978, 1980 and 1981. From all this evidence, the Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the residential portion on the Ist floor and the IInd floor was being used for commercial purposes i. e. for storing the stocks and running the business of M/s Goel Pharma Distributors. This finding has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. I am of the view that the finding that the residential portion of the premises was being used for commercial purposes is supported by evidence and is well based.