HIRA LAL Vs. HAV. KIRPA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated 2nd June, 1973 rejecting his application for eviction of tenant-respondent. The facts are not disputed the narration of which is as under :-

(2.) The landlord made an application for the eviction of the tenant respondent under section 13 (2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It was alleged in the application that the demised premises were given on rent to Hav. Kirpa Ram, the present respondent for residential purposes. The demised premises consisted of one room and a small verandah. The monthly rent settled was Rs. 25/-. The tenant was also to pay the electricity charges, in addition to the rent. It was a monthly tenancy. In the application, the grounds alleged were that the tenant had committed default in the payment of the rent since 1st February, 1971, and that he has also not paid the electricity charges since January, 1971; that the tenant had changed the user of the premises in dispute inasmuch as he had started doing his business also in these premises without his written consent; that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by making additions and alterations in it without his written consent and that the tenant had become a source of nuisance to the persons living in the neighbourhood inasmuch as he had enclosed the hand-pump in his own premises and had, thus, deprived the public and the neighbours from using the same. The application of the landlord was resisted by the tenant and the allegations therein were denied. The arrears of rent were tendered by the tenant on the first hearing along with the tenant interest. The parties contested in the following issues :-

(3.) The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the landlord and held that the tenant had changed the user of the premises in dispute as he started using the premises for his business for preparing furniture. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the landlord and it was held that a valid notice was served on the tenant-respondent. Consequently the Rent Controller allowed the application of the landlord for ejectment of the tenant respondent. Dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant successfully filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on Issue No. 1 (which was the only issue under contest) and dismissed the application of the landlord. Hence this petition by the landlord.