TIKKA RAM GAUR Vs. SUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, under Section 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, whereby he allowed an appeal filed by Sukh Ram landlord-respondent No. 1 and ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioners from the premises in dispute.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an ejectment application against the petitioners and respondent No. 2 alleging that he had let out two shops comprising part of the building bearing No. 5/C.92 situated in NIT Faridabad indicated by letters 'CDEF' in the site plan attached there with at a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- besides house-tax and electric charges payable in advance on the 4th of each calender month. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought on various grounds including the ground of change of user. It was alleged that the shops were let out to the petitioner No. 1 for selling stationery items. He carried on this business in the shops for a few months but later on installed a printing press which he is running in sole proprietorship in the shop marked 'A' under the name and style of M/s. Gaur Printing Press, petitioner No. 2. It was further alleged that in the shop marked 'B' the petitioner (No. 1) is carrying on the business of steel scrap, which also amounts to change of user. All the grounds of eviction set out by respondent No. 1 in his application were negatived by the learned Rent Controller, who dismissed the ejectment application vide his judgment dated 3.5.1979.

(3.) THE learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that when the shops are let out for commercial purposes, the object of letting out is that the tenants shall use the same for selling merchandise. Installation of a printing press and operating the same does not come within the scope of commercial purpose to be pursued in a shop. I do not agree with this submission. Commercial purpose simply means carrying on a vocation with the motive to earn profit and this would include operation of a printing press also. The very fact that the lease deed was executed when the printing press was already being operated in the shops by petitioner No. 1 leaves no scope for doubt that the parties had mutually agreed that the tenant would carry on the business of operating a printing press in the demised premises. The words 'commercial purpose', thus stipulated in the lease deed include installation and operation of a printing press by petitioner No. 1. It is, thus, clear that there has not been any change of user of the shops of petitioner No. 1 and this ground is not at all established.