TEK CHAND Vs. ANANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, dated 2.3.1982. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead dismissed the petition for eviction.

(2.) The sole controversy which seeks an answer is as to whether there has been change of user of the business in the demised premises. The findings of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority are that two shops had been let out. One of the shops was being used for sale of vegetables and the other for general merchandise. The petitioner's case was that besides the same, the plastic goods and rubber shoes were being sold also in the other shop.

(3.) It is obvious from these findings of fact based on evidence that the purpose for which the property is said to have let out is continuing. The sale of plastic goods and shoes business is being run but on a small portion of the shop. The matter in this regard requires no probing. It is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain, (1989-2)96 P.L.R. 313 (S.C.). Therein the premises were let out for commercial purpose i.e. for running of cycle/rickshaw repair shop. In addition to that the tenant started sale of televisions. It was held that this will not give rise to the ground of eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Identical is the position herein. Obviously, it must follow that there is no change of user. The revision petition being without merit, therefore, must fail and is dismissed.