Gurmukh Singh Deceased Represented By Gurbachan Kaur and Others vs Kishan Chand

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

The landlord Kishan Chand sought the ejectment of the tenant Gurmukh Singh (now deceased) from shop, in dispute inter alia on the grounds that he was in arrears of rent and that he bad changed the user thereof According to the landlord, the shop was given on rent in the year 1957 for doing tailoring business From the very inception of the tenancy, the tailoring business was being carried on therein. The tenant had started embroidery business in the said premises and the machines were run by electric motors it was also pleaded that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the shop, in dispute, and that the same had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller negative all the pleas of the landlord. According to the Rent Controller, three was nothing on the record to show that the shop, in dispute, was let out for tailoring business and as such the mere fact that the Respondent was also carrying on the embroidery business therein was not sufficient to hold that the tenant had used the shop for a purpose other than the one for which it was let out. Since all the pleas raised by the landlord were negatived, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the only finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the change of user of the demised premises was challenged by the landlord. The other findings of the Rent Controller were not assailed. The learned appellate Authority found that there has been change of user thereof because according to it, the premises had been let out for doing tailoring business whereas the tenant was carrying on the embroidery business for the last eight years therein. In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court. During the pendency of this revision petition, the tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 6th March, 1985.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that, of course, the tenant was doing the tailoring business in the beginning of the tenancy, but lateron, alongwith tailoring business be also started embroidery business which is ancillary to the tailoring business. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, on that basis alone it could not be held that there was change of user of the demised premises According to the learned Counsel, the tenant has not ceased to do the tailoring business therein. In addition to the tailoring business, he has also started doing embroidery business which is also ancillary to the tailoring business. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Baldev Datt v. Puran Chand (1979) 2 R.L.R. 193, Maharaj Kishan Kesar v. Mikha Singh 1966 Curr. L.J. 273, Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal 1978 (2) Rent L.R. 621, and Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal (1984) 86 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.). On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that it was nowhere pleaded by the tenant that be was also doing the tailoring business alongwith embroidery work ; rather according to the pleadings, he was only carrying on the embroidery work therein, The said work is done by electric motors Therefore, it was a clear cat case of change of user because the premises were letout for doing tailoring business only. In support of the contention, the leanned counsel relied upon Baldev Datt''s case(supra) and Jagdish Lal v. Hans Raj (sic) 88 P.L. 270. Reference was also made to Sugar Mal v. Seeta Ram 1980(1) Rent L.R. 33, to contend that it was the dominant purpose for which the premises were let out, ,which his to be seen and in. Any case, argued the learned Counsel, since the premises were plying vacant after the death of the original tenant Gurmukh Singh, a commission be appointed to find cut the state of affairs as it exists it present.

I have head the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence, and the case law cited at the bar,

From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, it could not be successfully argued that the tailoring business was not being carried out in the shop, in dispute In paragraph 3(b) of the written statement, the tenant pleaded that the shop was taken on rent for business purposes and business was being craned on therein. There was no change of user thereof. The embroidery work was being carried on to the knowledge of the landlord for the last eight years. It was an an oral tenancy. The tenant was not debarred from working the embroidery manchines which were just like the other sewing machines. The tenant appeared in the witness box as R.W. 2 and stated that the shoo was taken on rent for business purposes Earlier, the rent thereto was Rs. 4/- per month. Lateran it was increased to Rs. 12/- per month In his cross examination, no question was put to him as to whether he was carrying on only the embroidery business and not the tailoring business therein. Thus, from the evidence on the record, it is amply proved, particularly from the statement of Maya Ram, A.W. 3, who categorically stated that the tenant was carrying on the tailoring business along with the embroidery work which is done by electric machines, that the business carried on by the tenant is still that of tailoring whether the same is carried on by electric machines or manually-operated machines and that the embroidery work is done by the electric machines. It could not be disputed that the embroidery work is ancillary to the tailoring business. In the year 1957 when the shop, in question, was let out for tailoring, business, the embroidery work was not that popular and if the tenant loner on also started the business of embroidery in addition to the tailoring work, in the present case, it could not be held that there was a change of user as contemplated under the Rent Law The tenant is admittedly carrying on the tailoring business in the premises, in dispute

In Maharaj Kishan Kesar''s case (supra), it was held that the business of selling petrol is not an allied business of workshop for repairing and servicing of motor vehicles, but there is no doubt that it can well be regarded as part of that business. Where a tenant oarrying on the business of rurnirg a workshop for the repairing and servicing of motor vehicles starts selling petrel, the pump is regarded as a part of motor workshop business.

In the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sikander Lal''s case (supra), the question of change of user was considered. In the said case, the premies were let cut for handloom business The tenant had also installed a carding machine to covert old cloth into thread in these circumstances, it was held therein that the carding of thread formed part of handloom busimss. It was ancillary to the specified purpose and did not amount to charge of user

Baldev Datt''s case (supra), was relied upon by both the parties. Therein, reliance was mainly placed or. Telu Ram v. Om Parkash (1971) 73 P.L.R. 1. In Tela Ram''s case (supra), the learned Judges concurred with the decision of the learned Single Judge in Balwant Singh v. Brij Mohaon C.R.P. No. 645 of 1961, decided on 16th March, 1962, wherein the learned judge observed that where the premises were let out for fixing handlooms be latter on power-looms were fixed, it amounted to the user of the premises for a purpose different from the one for winch the same were leased According to the learned Judge deciding Baldev Datt''s case those observations were fully applicable to the said case. In the said case the learned Judge had conclude that the premises were rented out not for embroidery business but for tailoring business and that the embroidery business was carried on in the said premises. In other words, in the said case, on the facts found, the tenant had ceased to do the tailoring business and, therefore, the learned Judge held that there was a change of user of the premises. However, in the present case, it has been found that the tenant was carrying on the tailoring business and with it he had also started doing embroidery business any case, once it is held that the embroidery business is ancillary to the tailoring business, then, it could not be argued that it amounted to the change of user of the demised premises.

Jagdish Lal''s case (supra) also does not help the case of the landlord. In the said case, the shop was let for running (sic) depot. The tenant had installed a atta chakt (sic) mills) also therein Therefore, it was held that the running of the ration depct a trading activity while the installation of the atta chakt was a manufacturing activity ; hence there was change of user of the premises No such proposition is involved it the present case This, the authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the landlord have no applicability to the facts of the case in hard

Having held that the embroidery business is ancillary to the tailoring business in the present case the tenant was not liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of change of user thereof The view taken by the lower appellate Court in this behalf is wrong and illegal. The learned Pent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that there was no change of user of the premises.

As regards the prayer of the landlord that the tenant has ceased to occupy it a premises, it could not be gone into in this petition He will, however, ever, be at (sic) to move a separate eviction petition on this ground if available to him Moreover the ground that the building (sic) become unfit and (sic) for human habitation was negative by the Rent Controller and the same has not been (sic) before the Appellate Authority in appeal In any case, if this ground is available to the landlord, he may seek his remedy in accordance with law.

12 . Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application it Respondent with no order as to costs. C.M. stands disposed of accordingly.