High CourtsSingle Bench

Dharam Raj and Another vs Roshan Lal and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 July 1993 · Citation: (1993) 104 PLR 642 : (1993) 2 RCR(Rent) 477

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Jhanji, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 — Section 13(2), 15(5)
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 1505 of 1989
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 402 words

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Two shops, namely, 867/17 and 864/17 situated in Bagh Samadh Sarain Guchki, Kaithal were let out to the respondent under a rent note dated 9.1.1960. Their ejectment was sought on the ground of change of user. In the ejectment application it was claimed that the tenants, instead of using the shops as such, are using one at them as godown whereas the other shop was being used as workshop for baking bamboos. For that purpose, the tenants had installed a Bhathi. Tenants contested the petition on the ground that right from the inception of tenancy, the shops are being used for the purpose of godown and workshop respectively and, therefore, they were not liable to be ejected. Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application. Order of the Rent Controller was set aside and in consequence thereof ejectment petition was dismissed on the ground that the shops are being used as godown and workshop right from the inception of tenancy and hence there was no change of user

2.

When this matter came up before me for hearing, I referred the matter for hearing to a larger bench. The Division Bench, on review of the judicial precedents, held that "mere knowledge of the landlord of the change of user, may be even from the very inception of the tenancy, would not absolve the tenant from liability for ejectment on the ground, in the absence of any written consent of the landlord to such change of user." (Reported as Dharam Raj and another Vs. Roshan Lal and another, ).

3.

In the light of answer to the reference, I am of the view that this revision has to successed. Admittedly, as per the rent note, premises were to be used as shops, No written consent whatsoever has been brought on record or pleaded to show that the landlord ever consented in writing for change of user. In view of the matter, the order of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained and thus is set aside. Civil Revision shall stand allowed with no order as to costs However, respondents are allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided they pay/deposit the entire arrears of rent within ore month from today including that of three months and also file an undertaking to that effect within one month that they shall hand over vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of the aforesaid period.