HARNAM SINGH Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision application whose eviction has been ordered from the demised property on two grounds (a) that he has changed the user of the property as against the one for which he obtained its tenancy, and (b) that he had caused damage to the property. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have both concurred in their conclusion on these grounds and hence the order of eviction against the applicant-tenant.

(2.) What is said by the learned counsel for the applicant is that every since the allotment of this property to the applicant he had been carrying on a soda water factory in it and so it could not have been said that this property was let to him for a different purpose and that by his setting up a soda water factory in it he had altered the property. The property was allotted to him in November, 1951 and his own case is that he set up the soda-water factory in a part of it sometime in 1952. The allotment chit says that the allotment was of a house to the applicant, which obviously means residential property. It was he who then changed the user of it by subsequently setting up a soda-water factory in it. So that the conclusion of the authorities below on this is not open to any criticism whatsoever. So far as the damage to the dismissed property is concerned, the finding, supported by evidence, is that the applicant has constructed a water tank in the property so as to run his soda-water factory, and the construction of a water tank obviously would mean damage to the property as it was in its original shape. Storage of water can lead to any amount of difficulties. So that even this ground has been proved against the applicant.

(3.) This revision application thus fails and is dismissed with costs, counsel's fee being Rs. 30. The applicant is allowed two amounts within which to vacate the demised property. Consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3645 of 1968 by the applicant has become infructuous and is dismissed.