SAIN DASS Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord Sain Dass sought the ejectment of his tenant Jai Singh, inter alia, on the ground that he had changed the user of the premises in dispute, i.e. the shop, for which it was taken on rent. According to the landlord, the shop in dispute was given to the tenant for running a shop whereas he stated using it as a godown. In written statement, the tenant denied the said allegations and pleaded that he taken the shop for being used as a godown and not for running the shop as such, and from the very beginning he was using the same as a godown. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that since in the rent note Ex. D-1, dated 24th April, 1962 the premises were shown as a shop whereas the tenant had admittedly been using the same as a godown, it will amount to change of user. As a result of this finding, an eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that although in the rent note, the premises were described as a shop but from the very inception of the tenancy the same was being used as a godown, and not only that, in the vicinity all such-like shops were being used as a godown there being hardly one or two shops in the neighbourhood being used as such. With these findings, the eviction order was set aside.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this contention. Even if in the rent note, the premises in dispute are described as a shop, it has been found as a fact that from the very inception the same was being used as a godown throughout, and not as a shop, and, so, it did not amount to change of user. Not only that, it has been further found as a fact by the Appellate Authority that in the vicinity, all such-like shops are being used as a godown by the people. Moreover, the premises were let out vide rent note Ex. D-1 dated 24th April, 1962, whereas the ejectment application was filed on 30th May, 1975, alleging change of user, whereas, as observed earlier, the shop was being used as a godown from the very inception of the tenancy. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety with the finding of the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.