RAJ RANI Vs. KRISHAN BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the order of eviction passed on the ground that the tenant was guilty of change of user of the property of conversion of property let out for a residential purpose for a non-residential purpose.

(2.) THE two principal contentions that are raised by the tenant in support of this argument are : (i) the change of user as urged by the landlord and as found by the authorities below referred to user of the courtyard in the residential premises for manufacturing of almirah and boxes. The change of user had not been attributed for the entire building and consequently the provisions of the Act allowing the landlord to obtain eviction would not be attracted and (ii) there is no clear proof that there was ever a change of user in the property and reliance of the Courts below on certain photographs showing the installation of certain machineries was not sufficient to sustain the finding that there had been a change of user.

(3.) AS regards the first contention that the tenant had converted without lawful authority the residential property to nonresidential use, there has been a specific denial by the tenant that the property is put to any non- residential use. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority however had the benefit of Local Commissioner's report who had inspected the property, took photographs and had also given a report giving out the physical features available at the property. The photographs seemed in a large measure to influence the thinking of the Courts below relating to the non-residential user that the tenant was putting the property too. The photographs evidenced the presence of large oil engine and of certain steel sheets. This High Court, at the stage of admitting the revision, had also appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and give a report. The direction in the warrant of commission issued on 30.08.1991 was to report whether there existed in the building, any shed for commercial purpose. A report has also been brought out who has found that no commercial activity was being carried out and he has only found cow-shed sitting on "three side walls" and towards the open space, it was resting only on one pillar which was made of bricks. The observation of the Advocate Commissioner was that the premises were being used only for residential purposes and he could not find anything relating to commercial activity. It is most likely that the evidence that was picked up at the time of trial by appointment of a Local Commissioner and which have been relied on by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court have ceased to exist. The Local Commissioner appointed by the High Court found no commercial activity and found no shed in the courtyard. It was most likely that a tenant who was facing an action for eviction on the ground of conversion of the building had removed the evidence or had ceased to use it for commercial activity. The report secured by the High Court itself will not conclude the issue for, it has to be seen if at the time of the filing of the petition, the tenant had put it to such a non-residential use, it would enable the landlord to apply for eviction on the said ground.