SUKHDEV RAI KAUSHAL Vs. PARTUL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition for eviction was filed under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the grounds of change of user of the tenanted premises for a purpose other than to which it was let and that the respondent had committed such acts as likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. There was another ground of non-payment of rent, which lost its significance on account of the fact that the tenant had at the first hearing paid the rent and there was no need for consideration of the same.

(2.) THE landlord's contention as regards the change of user was that the property was shop-cum-flat building and the building portion which was to be used for a residential purpose by the landlord was also put to use after the tenant vacated the premises and went to his own property which he had subsequently purchased and started using the residential portion for storing hardware goods.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states in the forefront of his arguments that the authorities ought not have relied on the Local Commissioner's report which was prepared without notice and vitiated by a bias. This objection regarding the report, as was being found by the authorities below, even if it is to be accepted and the report is discarded, there was still an admission of the tenant himself that during the subsistence of tenancy, he had vacated the residential portion and shifted to his own house elsewhere in Chandigarh. Learned counsel referred to the fact that after he had vacated the premises, his employee at the shop was in occupation of the residential portion. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that there was no such pleading and on the other hand two other independent witnesses were examined to state that the residential portion of the premises had remained closed and only the hardware articles of the shop being stored at the premises. Both the authorities below have referred to the fact that the residential portion of the property has not been used as such and there is no reason to take a different view from how the two authorities have considered the issue.