RAM LUBHAYA Vs. MALTI NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the petitioner landlord being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by Rent Controller (4), Shimla, on June 30, 1993, in case No. 24/2 of 1987/85 and partly confirmed and partly set aside by Appellate Authority (1), Shimla, on March 21, 1996, in Appeal Nos.62 -S/14 of 1993 and 72 -S/14 of 1993.

(2.) The petitioner herein was the original landlord and the respondent was the original tenant before the Rent Controller. The petitioner filed an application being case No.24/2 of 1987/85 against the respondent in the court of the Rent Controller (4), Shimla, under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urben Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for possession of suit premises on three grounds. Firstly, there was change of user by the tenant inasmuch as she used the rented premises for a purpose other than for which it was let out; secondly, the tenant had committed acts which have impaired materially the value or utility of the residential premises; and, thirdly, the tenant was guilty of causing private nuisance and the acts committed by her had materially affected health, comfort and convenience of the petitioner as well as neighbours residing in the building in question.

(3.) The case of the petitioner was that the suit premises were let to respondent for residential purpose. She had, however, converted the same into non -residential by commercialising a part there of. Before change of user she had not taken written consent of the landlord. One of the rooms was converted into a temple and she was receiving donations from devotees. Thus, she had used a part of the premises as a source of permanent income. It was also her case that she had committed acts which had materially impaired value or utility of the premises and damaged permanently water pipes, other fittings and fixtures which had endangered safety of the entire building. Moreover, the tenant was guilty of causing nuisance. Several devotees used to visit the temple daily and inspite of repeated requests by the petitioner, she had not stopped nuisance. She was creating sounds by chanting Bhajans and Kirtans and by using loud - speakers. On all these grounds, the petitioner prayed an order of eviction against the respondent.