DEVINDER NATH A Vs. DEVINDER NATH DHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.9.1979 passed by the learned Appellate Authority. Rupnagar under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), whereby it set aside the order of the Rent Controller and allowing the application of the landlord-respondents directed the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop in dispute.

(2.) THE ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the respondent alleging that the shop in dispute consisting of two rooms and a verandah situated within the limits of Municipal Committee, Morinda and more fully described in the heading of the petition had been let out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 2/- vide rent note dated 4.12.1964. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the grounds inter alia that he had neither paid nor tendered rent from 31.4.1975 onwards and that while the shop in dispute was given to him for the purpose of business he had converted it into a residential premises without the consent of the respondents. It was further alleged that he had constructed a kitchen in the premises and was residing there. The application was opposed by the petitioner who filed his written statement. He tendered the rent due along with interest and costs on the first date of hearing which was accepted by the respondents without any objection. Thus, the only surviving ground left was whether the petitioner had converted the shop in dispute into a residential premises. the learned Rent Controller received evidence of the parties on this point and ultimately held vide his order dated 27.5.1978 that the shop in dispute was still being used for the purpose for which it was let out to the petitioner. He was carrying on the business of preparing baan and he was continuing the said business in the shop in dispute. The mere fact that he has been sleeping in the said premises or even preparing his meals there would not change the character of the building or its use from a non-residential building to a residential building. As a result, he dismissed the ejectment application.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as also the evidence by the parties on the record of the learned Rent Controller. I am of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. It is an admitted fact that the tenant does not have any family. He has neither wife nore any child. He is a lonely soul. He is carrying on the business of baan in the shop in dispute. No doubt, he spreads his cot and sleeps in the shop. He has also his ration card on which the address of shop is given. He cooks his meals, eats, washes and sleeps in the shop. But all the same, the dominant purpose for which the shop is being used is that of carrying on the business of baan by him. It has been held in Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal and others, 1978(2) RCR 601; AIR 1978 S.C. 1601, that if a tenant who takes out a petty premises for carrying on a small trade, also stays in the rear portion, cooks and eats, he does not pervert the purpose of the lease. The user of the shop is not so varied as to change the character of the building. The mere fact that the petty shopkeeper stays in the shop at night does not covert its user into a residential premises. Sant Ram's case applies on all fours to the case in hand.