HARI KISHAN Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.1979 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh (for short 'the Act'), whereby it accepted the appeal of the landlord-respondent and granted his application for ejectment of Hari Kishan tenant-petitioner from one room in front of property No. 44 in Grain Market, Chandigarh situated towards Property No. 45. During the pendency of the revision petition, Hari Kishan tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on the record as petitioners.

(2.) THE respondent filed an ejectment application against the tenant inter alia on the ground that the demised room was let out to him for running a Karyana shop. He has, however, using the said room for a purpose other than for which it was leased out. He changed his trade and started using it for the sale of fire works such as crackers etc. The learned Rent Controller after receiving evidence appreciating of the same reached at the conclusion that the tenant is not guilty of change of user of the premises. He, therefore, dismissed the ejectment application. An appeal filed by the respondent before the learned Appellate Authority succeeded and vide order under revision the same was accepted. The judgment of the Rent Controller dated 22.2.1979 was set aside and an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. This is how the tenant has filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THERE is no evidence worth credence on the record to prove that the shop was let out for running the business of Karyana nor is it established that the tenant ever carried out Karyana business there. Hari Kishan tenant appeared as RW-2. He stated that he is running the business of general merchant in the premises since the inception of the tenancy and he was also selling fire works material right from the beginning of the tenancy. He obtained a licence for sale of crackers in the year 1970 which he still holds. He further stated that the respondent never objected to sale of crackers etc. by him. Rajinder Kumar Clerk, Estate Office, Chandigarh appeared as RW-1 and he deposed that firm Hari Kishan Jai Parkash was granted licence for fire explosives (Pathake) with effect from 27.7.1970 and this licence is being renewed since then. The evidence shows that the premises was let out to the tenant some where in the year 1969-70. It cannot be conceived that he first started a Karyana business and then within a few months shifted to the other business of general merchandise particularly when the evidence produced on the record proves that he got licence for selling crackers etc. on 27.7.1970. No definite date of commencement of tenancy is given by either party. But it is the averment of the landlord himself that the shop was let out 5/6 years prior to the date of the filing of the ejectment application on 14.10.1976. It is thus obvious that soon after the start of the tenancy, the tenant applied for obtaining the licence for selling fire explosives (Pathakas). The version of the tenant that right from the beginning of the tenancy he started the business of general merchandise and selling crackers etc. in the shop therefore, receives solid support from the evidence produced by him particularly the licence issued by the Chandigarh Administration for sale of fire explosives (Pathakas). Learned counsel for the parties have cited in their support many authorities but it is not necessary to advert to them for the simple reason that it is not proved on the record that at any stage from the start of the tenancy the petitioner has ever used the same for a purpose other than that for which he started using it right from inception of tenancy.