BHAGWAN DASS Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal.

(2.) MILKHI Ram was the original owner landlord of the house in dispute of which the premises in dispute is a part. He died in the year 1980 and thus, his widow Kaushalya Devi became landlady-owner of the premises in dispute: She filed the present ejectment application dt. 18-12-1981, inter alia, on the grounds that the tenant had changed the user of the premises without her consent whereas her deceased husband had let out the premises for sale of the cycles but now the tenant was carrying on repair work and had also installed welding apparatus; that the tenant is a source of nuisance to her and the other occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood; that he had damaged the floor and walls of the shop and thus materially impaired its value and utility. In the written statement the tenant, controverted the said allegations of the landlady and pleaded that he had been selling and repairing cycles from the date of his induction as tenant and has not installed any welding apparatus. He also pleaded that he had never caused any obstruction or annoyance to the landlady and the other occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood.

(3.) LEARNED Rent Controller found that the tenant has been on the work of cycle repairs and thus, there was no change of user. On the question of nuisance, the Rent Controller found that "so it cannot be said that the respondent is a nuisance to the neighbourers and occupiers of the building. The husband of the applicant never took such objection in his previous application. Although, it has been admitted by the, applicant that the respondent is committing nuisance for the last 10/12 years. " In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal; the learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of nuisance and came to the conclusion that "in the present case, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has proved that the respondent is a source of nuisance to the occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood. " In view of that finding, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.