Baldev Sahai and Other vs Charanjit Lal

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlords'' revision petition whose application for ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed in appeal.

The landlords-petitioners sought the ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the demised premises inter alia on the ground that he had used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased The allegations made in the application were that the premises, in question, were taken by him for the purposes of running a regular shop, but he started using the same as a godown and, thus, changed their user in violation of the terms of the tenancy. The plea taken in the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondent was that the premises, in dispute, were taken on rent for the purposes of being used as a godown for mercantile goods and that he had been so using it sence the year 1959, i.e., from the very inception of the tenancy vide rent-note dated September 23, 1959, Exhibit A-l. Previous thereto, the premises were used as a godown by M/s. Ganu Mai Jagan Nath of Moiinda as a tenant. Since 1959, the said premises were being used as a godown by him. Chanan Ram was the owner of the disputed premises who died somewhere in the year 1973. He acquiesced in its user as a godown by accepting rent from him (the tenant) and by not objecting to its user as a godown. The learned Rent Controller found that the disputed premises were leased out as a shop, but the Respondent had started using them as a godown without the written consent of the landlord and had, thus, changed their user which was not permitted by law and he was, therefore, liable to be ejected therefrom. In appeal, the Appellate Authority, reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the premises, in dispute, were used as a godown throughout and not as a shop and, thus, there was no change of user thereof as alleged. As a result, the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have come up in revision to this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the learned Rent Controller on the appreciation of the evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the premises, in dispute, were given on rent as a shop and since the Respondent was using the same as a godown, he was liable to be ejected therefrom, but this finding has been reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily and against the evidence on the record.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion, that the learned Appellate Authority after discussing the entire evidence has given a firm finding that the demised premises were being used as a godown throughout and not as a shop and, thus, there was no change of user thereof. Primarily, this is a finding of fact which could not'' be interfered within the revisional jurisdiction.

It is true that in the rent-note, Exhibit A-l, the premises, in dispute, are described as a shop, but at the same time, it has also been provided therein that the shop may be used by the tenant for his needs. Moreover, from the very inception of the tenancy, the premises are being used as a godown. The present landlords came into picture for the first time in the year 1973 after the death of the original landlord Chanan Ram. The application for ejectment of the tenant from the premises, in question, was filed on February 7, 1976. Under these circumstances, it was for the landlords to prove that previously, the premises were being used as a shop and that it was during the continuance of the tenancy that the tenant changed the user thereof from the shop to a godown. This the landlords have failed to prove by any cogent evidence. Merely because in the rent-note, premises have been described as a shop, it did not mean that the same were rented out for the purposes of running a business therein; more particularly when it has been proved by the tenant that from the very inception of the tenancy, they were being used as a godown.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.