Bakhshish Singh vs Ram Nath Verma (died)

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.1.1978 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short the Act), whereby an appeal filed by the tenant-Petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 24 2.1979 passed for his ejectment by the learned Rent Controller, Ferozepur, has been affirmed.

The Petitioner is a tenant in a shop situated at Chowk Chhata Bazar, Feroze pur City, along with inner store and parchhati, the boundaries of which have been set out in the application u/s 13 of the Act filed by Ram Nath Verma, the landlord-Respondent.

The Respondent sought the ejectment of the Petitioner inter aha on the ground that without his written consent, the Petitioner has sublet the same to Doctor Kesar Singh who was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 to the application and that he has changed the user of the shop from barbar''s work to that of a medical practitioner. The ground of subletting was however, not proved and was, therefore, negatived by the learned Rent Controller, but he ordered the ejectment of the Petitioner on the ground that he had changed the user of the shop from that of barber to that of Jarrah (an indigenous practitioner for healing wounds and incising malignant growth on the skin). As already mentioned above, the appeal failed and that is how he filed the present revision petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the learned Rent Controller including the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that barbers in this part of the country also work as Jarrah. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was working as a barber on the shop and besides he was also undertaking the work of a Jarrah. The Petitioner himself has admitted while appearing in the witness-box that previously he was doing the job of barber and was also working as Jarrah but now he has given up the work of barber and is exclusively working as a Jarrah. His statement is supported by Kulbhushan labour inspector R. W.5 He brought the record of the shop kept under the shop and Commercial Establishment Act and deposed that earlier the Petitioner was running the shop by the name of standard Hair Cutting Saloon but subsequently the entry was changed into ''Vaid Ki Dookan'' in red ink. He further deposed that in the prescribed From ''M'' the shop of the Petitioner is described as "Jarrah Di Hatti".

No rent note was executed when the shop was let out by the Respondent to the Petitioner. Therefore, there is no specific purpose for which the shop was let out. The shop is, therefore, to be used for carrying on any business which can in the normal course be carried on in a shop. The fact that the Petitioner is now exclusively doing the work of Jarrah and has given up the work of barber does not amount to change of user of the shop within the meaning of Clause (ii) (b) of Section 13(2) of the Act. I, therefore set aside the finding to the contrary recorded by the authorities below.

As a result of the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the learned Rent Controller and judgment of the Appellate Authority are set aside and the application for ejectment of the Petitioner filed by the landlord Respondent is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.