CHHAJU RAM Vs. TULSI DASS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case which led to this reference to the Division Bench are that Chhaju Ram Petitioner purchased the shop in dispute which is situated at Rewari from Harish Chand, in which Tulsi Das Respondent was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 24. After the acquisition of the shop by the Petitioner, the Respondent became a tenant in these premises under him. The Petitioner sought the eviction of the Respondent from the Court of the Rent Controller on the ground that the Respondent had sublet the premises and that these were being used for a purpose other than the one for which these had been rented to him. The Respondent resisted the eviction by denying the subletting and the change of user. He pleaded that he was a partner in firm Motiram -Ramlal doing the business of purchase and sale of cloth at Rewari and this firm from the inception of the tenancy was using the demised premises for storing cloth. Other pleas which were raised before the Rent Controller were not pressed and for that reason need not be taken notice of. The learned Rent Controller returned a finding against the Petitioner about the change of user and subletting of the demised premises. These findings were affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. Dissatisfied with the adverse verdict of both the subordinate Tribunals, the Petitioner filed this revision in this Court.

(2.) BOTH the Rent Controller and the appellate Court found as a fact and the parties are not at variance that the premises in dispute are being used as a godown by the Respondent. In the Chambers before my learned brother R.N. Mittal, J. it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that in the rent note the premises are mentioned as a 'shop' which has not been, defined in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. III of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 'Shop' in ordinary parlance means a place where business of purchase and sale of goods on retail for price is done. According to the Petitioner, a 'godown' is not the same thing as a 'shop'. Thus where a 'shop' is used as a 'godown' there is change of user. To support this argument, the Petitioner cited Balwant Singh v. Brij Mohan C.R. 645/61 decided on 16th March, 1962 and Ram Swarup v. Om Parkash C.R. 654/62 decided on 6th September, 1963. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent after citing Kishan Lal v. Madan Gopal C.R. 698/59, decided on 12th August, 1960 and Chhabil Dass v. Fateh Chand C.R. 237/66 decided on 25th November, 1966 argued that if a shop keeper stores goods or uses the 'shop' as a 'godown', then the user is not changed. R.N. Mittal, J. referred the case to a larger Bench observing 'after perusing the aforesaid judgments I find that the question involved in the present case is not free from difficulty. The question is also of such a nature which may very often arise. In the circumstances it is desirable that the case may be referred to a Division Bench'. This is how the case came to be laid before us.

(3.) THE rent note executed between the parties is a charter of their rights. If the purpose or use for which the demised premises is rented, is set out after agreement by the parties, in the rent note, then it does not pose any problem. If, on the other hand, it does not specifically state the purpose of letting, then the Courts or the Tribunals are called upon to decide the matter in controversy by interpretation of the statutory definition or, in the absence of such a definition by reference to the ordinary dictionary meanings or their meanings as are commonly understood in business, trade or in the locality.