MANGAT RAM Vs. JAI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mangat Ram landlord filed a petition for ejecting Jai Narain tenant on the ground that the tenant was using the building for the purposes other than for which it was leased out to him. It was averred that the shop in dispute was let out to the respondent for business purposes but he was using the major portion of the shop for residential purposes for the last three months without the consent of the petitioner. It was averred that the parents and wife of the respondent, his adult sons and son's wife and other children resided in the said portion. The other ground was taken that the respondent was guilty of nuisance as he had encroached upon the Kothri marked 'E' in the plan, belonging to the landlord. The ejectment petition was resisted by the tenant and it was denied that the shop in question was being used for residential purposes or that there was any encroachment made by him. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

(2.) The learned Rent Controller held issue No. 1 against the petitioner and issue No. 2 in favour of the petitioner, and consequently the petition was dismissed. Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority on issue No. 1. It has been contended by the learned counsel that it is clear from the report and statement of Shri Chander Singh. Local Commissioner (A.W.2) that the petition of the premises marked 'D' was being used for residential purposes by the tenant. It has been contended that since the tenant failed to disclose in the written statement as to the particulars of the house where he was residing, therefore, this factor should also be taken into consideration against the tenant.

(3.) The next contention of the learned counsel is that even if it be held that the tenant and his family members were not using portion 'D' of the premises as their residence, still according to the averment made in the written statement and the statement of the tenant, the tenant is liable to be evicted as according to his own saying, some Charpais and chairs were being kept in portion 'D' of the shop for the customers to take rest. The contention of the learned counsel is that since a portion of the premises is being used for the residence of the customers, therefore, in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Niranjan Kaur v. Dr. Siri Ram the user of the premises in question has been converted from non-residential to residential and, therefore, the eviction order should have been passed.