BHAJAN KAUR Vs. SANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the landlady is directed against the judgment dated 29.7.1980 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana affirming the order dated 29.3.1978 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby an ejectment application filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner is owner and landlord within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and Sant Singh is tenant under her in two rooms styled as a shop comprising part of house No. B-XIII-6 situated at G.T. Road, Ludhiana. She filed an ejectment application against the respondent under Section 13 of the Act stating therein that she had let out two rooms in the form of a shop to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- w.e.f. 1.6.1968 vide rent note dated 26.5.1967 (copy of which is Exhibit A-1). She claimed ejectment of the respondent on three grounds, namely, that the respondent has neither paid nor tendered rent of the premises in dispute since January, 1974; that the premises were let out to the respondent as a shop but he has converted the same for user as a godown and is using the same as such. This change of user of the premises is without written consent of the petitioner; that the respondent is guilty of commission of such acts as have impaired and/or likely to impaired further the value and utility of the premises that she requires the premises for her own use and occupation. The application was, however, dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and this order has been maintained by the learned Appellate Authority, on an appeal filed by the petitioner. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) I find force in this submission of the learned counsel. A perusal of the rent note (copy Exhibit A-1) shows that two rooms comprising part of property No. B.XIII-6 was taken on rent by the respondent from the petitioner as a shop. It is further incorporated therein that the petitioner on her own free will had let out two rooms to the respondent in the form of a shop for its user as such. Thus, the mere fact that the respondent started using the said shop as godown, may be right from the inception of the tenancy would not absolve him of his liability for ejectment under the Act. Clause (ii)(b) of sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the Act, lays down in no uncertain terms that where the tenant has after the commencement of the Act without the written consent of the landlord used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, the landlord shall be entitled to seek his eviction.