INDER SINGH CHOPRA Vs. JAIDEV GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only ground for ejectment of the tenant urged in this revision petition is that the tenant has changed the user of the demised premises from a house to a shop.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the demised premises were taken on rent with effect from 1.3.1974 at a rent of Rs. 100/- per month. The landlords claims that the premises were leased out to the tenant for the purpose of residence and in the rent note also the premises has been described as 'Makan' (house) which was to be used for the purpose of residence alone. The rent note was executed by the tenant.

(3.) THE authorities below, after appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence, came to the conclusion that the user of the premises had been changed from that of residential to commercial and the premises were needed by the landlord for his own use and occupation. These findings resulted in passing of the impugned order of ejectment. The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has urged that the finding arrived at by authorities below to the effect that the premises in dispute were taken on lease for residence, cannot be sustained. There is an overwhelming evidence led by the petitioner to the effect that he has been using the premises in dispute for tailoring business since the inception of the tenancy. It is contended that rent note Exhibit PW2/A cannot be read into evidence being a void document having been subsequently interpolated by adding the words "the house shall be used only for residence of the tenant". Exhibit PW2/A was read in Court and a reference was made to the statements of the witnesses namely RW5 Shri O.P. Chopra, Advocate, RW6 Girdhari Lal Clerk, as well as RW9 Inder Singh Chopra, the respondent to emphasise that since the demised premises are situated in a commercial locality i.e. Bazar and in all buildings around the demised premises, the first floors are being used either as scheduled buildings, i.e. for the offices of the lawyers etc. or for other commercial purpose, the premises in dispute should be taken to have been leased to the tenant for running a shop. It is further contended that the description of the demised premises in the municipal record as 'residential building' is of no consequence.