GURDEV SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision against the order of eviction by the appellate authority. The order of eviction was passed on two grounds. Firstly the change of user and secondly sub-letting. Though the rent note did not refer to the purpose for which the premises had been let out, but on a consideration of the evidence the Appellate Authority found that the premises have been let for the purpose of running a sewing machine business. That is a finding of fact, with which I cannot interfere in revision. The learned Appellate Authority has also found that the tenant has now started the business of a tea stall and sweet shop in the premises. This is not disputed. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that merely because he has started a tea stall and a sweet shop in the premises, it does not mean that there has been change of user, so long as he continues to sell sewing machines in the premises. He urges that there is ample evidence in the case showing that the petitioner is even now selling sewing machines. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Merely because he continues to sell sewing machines in the same premises it does not mean that he can he allowed to convert the premises in to a stall. There is a definite change of user as found by the appellate authority. On this ground alone the civil revision is dismissed. It is not necessary, to go into the other question of sub-letting. No costs.