GORA LAL PURI Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) JUGAL Kishore, landlord, filed the ejectment application dated September 8, 1976, for the eviction of his tenant, Gora Lal Puri, from the two shops, in dispute, situated at Bhatinda, asserting that on the basis of the oral agreement on March 1, 1969, the tenant had taken the demised shops for commercial purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- for one year and after the expiry of the said period, he was in occupation thereof as a statutory tenant. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the tenant, without the written consent of the landlord, had converted their user from business purpose into residential purpose and thereby changed their very nature and purpose. In the written statement, the stand taken by the tenant was that one of the shops was being used for residential purposes from the very inception of the tenancy. Since the said user was made prior to the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), the tenant was not liable to ejectment on the ground of change of user in view of the provisions of Section 13(2)(ii) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller found that it amply stood proved from the evidence that one of the shops was being utilised for residential purposes and the other for trade purposes and thus the tenant was liable to be ejected as he had used the premises for a purposes other than the one for which the same were let out. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on 12th January, 1979. The other grounds for ejectment taken by the landlord were rejected. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the Act was in force when the building was constructed in the year 1969. According to the tenant, he had changed the user from the very inception of the tenancy. The said building was exempted from the operation of the Act vide notification dated 21st June, 1971, though it was given retrospective effect. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in the year 1969-70, the Act was in force, but its operation was taken away subsequently vide above-said notification. He further argued that the question of exemption could only arise if the Act was there and it had commenced, otherwise the question of exemption under Section 3 of the Act would not arise. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Supreme Court authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguished and have no applicability to the facts of the present case. Those are the cases which relate to subletting which are distinguishable and separate from the cases of change of user of the building by the tenant. In any case, it was argued that since the change of user continued even after exemption from the operation of the Act, i.e., even after the year 1974, the tenant was liable to ejectment.