JAGAN NATH Vs. SHRI DEV CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 6.8.1986 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala, under Section 15(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (for short 'the Act') whereby an order of ejectment dated 9.6.1983 passed by the learned Rent Controller. Jagadhari against the tenant-respondents has been set aside and as a result the application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act filed by the landlord-petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent is a tenant under the petitioner on rented land measuring 11'x17' shown as ABCD in the site plan attached with the ejectment application. It forms part of plot No. 25/75 situated in Thapar Colony, Railway Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar. The respondent has raised a construction thereon which fact is recognised in the rent note copy of which is Exhibit R. In the ejectment application the petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent on various grounds but the grounds that has been pressed before me is the change of user of the premises by the respondent. It is averred in the ejectment application that after the commencement of Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949 without the written consent of the petitioner, the respondent has used the rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out. The respondent rented out the premises for the purpose of Karyana/parchoon business and not for any other purpose. He had made a statement that he would not use the premises for installing a flour mill or a Kohlu i.e. oil mill in the premises in question vide his statement made on oath before the Rent Controller on 23.7.1981. He was bound by this statement but contrary to the same and in its violation he installed a Kohlo (oil mill) in the premises which is against the terms of the tenancy.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller found that the respondent had changed the user of the premises in dispute and, therefore, ordered his ejectment on that ground. The learned Appellate Authority, however, reversed this finding by holding that no specific purpose of tenancy was stipulated in the rent note. Therefore, respondent was at liberty to make use of the premises for any business he liked. Installation of the oil expeller, therefore, could not be termed as change of the user of the premises.