VIJAY KUMAR Vs. ISHRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who had been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, assails the findings of the authorities below that have maintained the order of eviction on the grounds of different user and subletting of the premises. II. The rival contentions :

(2.) THE landlord's contention as regards the different user was that the property had been let out only for a non-residential purpose for running a laundry shop but the tenant had allowed the property to be used also for a residential purpose by letting his son to carry on his living along with his wife and children. The ground floor of the shop bearing No. 42 Sector 28/C, Chandigarh had given on rent for Rs.490/- per month and that the second respondent had been using the back portion of the shop for the purpose of denting, painting and welding of motor cars. This constituted not merely a change of user but an act of subletting that entitled the landlord to obtain eviction.

(3.) THE Rent Controller and the Appellate Court found, on an elaborate consideration of oral and documentary evidence, that the son Vijay Kumar had actually been using the property for his residential purpose. The case had been filed on 16.08.1993 and an Advocate Commissioner had also been appointed to note down the physical features of the property. The Commissioner had filed a report stating that the son had been using a cot at the back portion of the shop and was living with his wife. The Rent Controller, as well as, the Appellate Court found the contention of the landlord regarding the residential use of the son by the fact that apart from their oral evidence of an adjacent shop owner, who spoke about the continued living of the son at the premises, the copy of ration card had also been produced through a revenue official who had been summoned to produce the documents which contained reference to Vijay Kumar and other family members as being residents of the petition mentioned premises. The Courts below also found that the tenant had sublet the premises and had let out the courtyard to another person. It transpired that the second respondent had vacated the premises subsequent to the filing of the petition. IV. Basis of challenge for different user :