BIR SINGH Vs. HARJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Bir Singh against the order of the learned Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, dated January 7, 1976, whereby his appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated October 7, 1974, accepting the application of Smt. Harjinder Kaur respondent for his ejectment from S.C.F. No. 18, Sector 8 -B, Chandigarh, on the grounds of subletting and perversion of user, has been dismissed.

(2.) S .C.F. No. 18, Section 8 B, Chandigarh, is admittedly owned by Smt. Harinder Kaur respondent. It was let out to Bir Singh petitioner for carrying on general trade at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/ -. Smt. Harjinder Kaur filed a petition for ejectment against Bir Singh as also Malkiat Singh and Inayat Masih, in whose favour the former had sublet a part of the premises, on various grounds. Bir Singh denied having sublet the premises or having misused them. Inayat Masih, in his separate written statement, stated that he was a tenant of Bir Singh in the Barsati of the premises for about 6 -1/2 years upto April 6, 1973 and Bir Singh got the said premises vacated from him on April 6, 1973. He further added that he initially paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per annum and later it was enhanced to Rs. 50/ - per mensem.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the premises had been taken on rent by the petitioner from Smt. Harjinder kaur respondent for furniture business and he is running a furniture shop therein. Smt. Harjinder Kaur has failed to prove that she had not allowed Bir Singh petitioner to manufacture or repair furniture in the premises in dispute. May be there was some arrangement between her and the Union Territory Administration that manufacture and repair business shall not be carried on in the premises. Such an undertaking by Smt. Harjinder Kaur or arrangement between her and the Administration is not binding on the petitioner. Smt. Harjinder Kaur respondent has not appeared as a witness. Her husband but no such rent deed was produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, wants to infer that had the rent deed been produced it would not have supported the case of the landlady. The learned counsel has then argued that the manufacture and repair of furniture is allied business to one of its sale and irrespective of the manufacture and repair having been done in the premises the fact remains that the dominant use of the premises pertained to the sale of furniture and the petitioner was therefore, not liable to be ejected on the ground of perversion of user.