SOM NATH Vs. GIAN CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gian Chand and two daughters of Smt. Chanan Devi (since dead), the landlord of the premises in dispute, filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on various grounds. One of the grounds which found favour with the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority was that the tenant converted the user of the rented property from the purpose for which it was rented out to him without the written consent of the landlord and, therefore, he was ordered to be ejected. Another grounds on which the ejectment was sought was that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. This controversy was the subject matter of issue No. 4. The Rent Controller recorded a finding in favour of the tenant on issue No. 4. However, in view of the finding by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the petitioner-tenant had converted the user of the building in dispute and had changed the line of his business without the written consent of the petitioner, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this revision petition. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the conversion of the user of the building was with the written consent of the landlord. The learned counsel contends that in view of the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 4 and in view of the fact that the landlord received rent on the printed forms on which the business and style of the changed user was mentioned it be presumed that the landlord consented for the change of the user. This contention is without any merit. It may be pointed out that in the written statement no such plea was taken that the user has been changed with the written consent of the landlord. In the absence of any plea, no such finding can be recorded. Further more, in his statement, the tenant stuck to the position taken in the written statement that the user of the premises in question was not converted and the premises were rented but for the same purpose for which the same were being used by the tenant. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that the user of the premises was converted with the written consent of the landlord.

(3.) The only question to be determined in whether the change of the business in the rented premises from the sale of paints and stationery has been made or not. The Rent Controller in his order has clearly mentioned that the premises were rented out for the sale of stationery articles. Admittedly, the premises are now being used as restaurant. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority that there is conversion of use of premises cannot be found to be wrong. The same is hereby confirmed.