DHARAMBIR Vs. MANSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 17.1.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul who dismissed the appeal of Dharambir landlord by confirming the order of the Rent Controller.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Dharambir filed an ejectment petition against Mansa Ram seeking ejectment from the property situated within the Municipal limits of Rewari described in the head note of the petition and it was in possession of the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 7/-. Ram Chander was the previous landlord and the petitioner purchased the same vide registered sale deed Ex.AW. 1/1 dated 28.1.1967 for Rs. 3,000/- and so, the petitioner became the landlord. The ejectment of the respondent was sought on the ground of nonpayment of rent and change of user. It was pleaded that the premises was given for the purpose of shop and the respondent was using it as a godown. Moreover, the respondent has ceased to occupy the property for a continuous period of four months and he has materially impaired the value and utility of the property.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondent who denied the allegations. A preliminary objection was taken that the Ram Chander previous landlord filed an ejectment petition against him in the year 1952 on the ground of change of user by stating that the shop in question was let out for the purpose of running a shop but godown has been installed in it. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn and in these circumstances, the second petition by the successor of the landlord is not maintainable. On merits, the stand of the respondent was that he has paid arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs and the ground of non-payment of rent was given up. On merits, it was stated by the tenant that the tenanted premises were not used as shop. Moreover, it was given for the purpose of running a shop but it was let out for the purpose of godown and the respondent is using the premises as godown right from the inception of tenancy and in these circumstances, he has not changed the user of the property. Further, it was contended by the respondent that he had opened the suit property several times and he has not impaired the value or utility of the property.