JOGESHWAR PRASAD Vs. NARENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision petition is directed against the concurrently recorded pronouncements made by both the learned Courts below, whereby the tenant/petitioner herein was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, on his provenly falling into the arrears of rent in respect thereto besides his, without the consent of the land lord, putting it to a use, other than the use with respect whereof Ext. PW2/B was executed interse them.

(2.) The respondent is landlord of four storeyed building known as "Chauhan Niwas", Ward No. 6, Mahaveer,Mohalla, Kasba Bazaar, Rampur Bushar, District Shimla. The said building is situated over the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 9 min 13, being Khasra No. 657/202 measuring 143-50 square meters situated in Muhal Kasba Bazaar-II, Rampur Bushahr,District Shimla, H.P. He purchased the building vide registered sale deed No. 422/2011 reference No. 815/11, dated 12.10.2011 from its previous owner Surinder Singh son of Sh. Raja Ram R/o Main Bazaar, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla. The petitioner is a tenant with respect to two rooms and two kitchens situated in ground floor of the four storeyed building. He was inducted as tenant by the previous owner w.e.f. 1.10.2009 vide rent agreement dated 12.10.2009 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5500/- inclusive of house tax. The petitioner is residing with his family in one room and is running a tea stall/canteen in the second room. He has also changed the user of the premises from residential to commercial without the permission of the landlord.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant has admitted the factum of tenancy and the relationship of landlord and tenant interse the parties. However, the rate of rent @ 5500/- and the period of its non-payment has been denied and disputed. It is submitted that the petitioner is a tenant over the demised premises since 1992 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- inducted as tenant by the previous owner and that he has paid up to date rent @ 3,000/- per month. The petitioner has further denied the change of user of the premises from residential to non-residential/commercial. He has submitted that he is running a canteen since 1992 in one room and is residing in other room and kitchen. The said fact was well within the knowledge of the previous landlord and now the respondent. He has also denied the rent agreement dated 12.10.2009 having been executed between him and the previous landlord. The petitioner with these submissions denied the claim of the respondent/landlord for being in arrears of rent and guilty of the change of user of the demised premised.