HARI OM Vs. GURBUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only questions raised in this revision petition are, (i) whether a purchaser can seek ejectment, on the ground of change of user during the period prior to the purchase; and (ii) whether the findings with respect to change of user were improperly arrived at.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the undisputed facts which have come on record and have not been challenged during the course of arguments are, that the premises in dispute were leased out to the petitioner on 28.7.1978 vide rent note Exhibit A1 by the precedessor-in-interest of the respondent-landlord. The respondent purchased the demised premises from him on 25.8.1982. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on 12.10.1982 on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has changed the user of the premises in dispute from a residential house to that of a commercial building i.e. for preparation and sale of sweets, without the written consent of the landlord.

(3.) LERANED counssel for the petitioner has half heartedly challenged the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below. He has taken me through thte oral evidence. The oral evidence becomes insignificant in view of the documentt Exhibit A1 admittedly having been executed between the landlord and tenant at the time of the leasing out the demised premises to the tenant. The lease deed Exhibit A1 categorically describes premises in dispute as a house, though no specific purpose for leasing it has been mentioned. In the Full Bench Judgment reported in Des Raj's case (supra) it has been observed :