LAJPAT RAI TAYAL Vs. MAMAN RAM DALMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition for eviction by the landlord survives for consideration whether the tenant had unauthorizedly changed the residential building for a non-residential purpose. The Rent Controller granted eviction on the said ground but in appeal to the Appellate Authority, the decision of the Rent Controller was reversed and the order of the eviction was set aside.

(2.) IN revision, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court had fallen into serious error in misappreciation of evidence, who failed to take into account relevant factors that showed that a property, which had been let for residential purpose has been used as a godown. While the landlord's own evidence was that the building had been let only for residential purpose, yet another witness PW-4 had referred to the fact that the property had been let out to the tenant for residential purpose and he had his own residence in the immediate vicinity. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the evidence of PW- 4 only on the ground that he earlier had some transactions with petitioner's father and therefore, his evidence as witness was interested, was clearly wrong. He would also urge that the evidence of the witness that he had a shop far away from the disputed premises was taken in isolation without adverting to his own evidence that he had his residence in the vicinity and that had given him a special advantage to speak from his personal knowledge of how the property had been originally put to use and how there had been a change of user subsequently. The Appellate Court also rejected the evidence of another witness PW-6 on the ground that he did not state categorically that the tenant had been using the premises only for the residential purpose and he found in his evidence a prevarication that he did not know for what purpose the property was let out to the tenant. Yet another witness examined was PW-5, whose evidence was perceived by the Appellate Authority as supporting the case of the tenant himself when he had stated that ever since he was an occupier of premises nearby he had known the tenant only to be using the property as a godown. Elsewhere in the same evidence, he had also stated that originally the property had been rented out only for residential purpose.

(3.) I find that the landlord has established the ground as urged by him and finding of the Rent Controller is restored and the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside.