Jagdish Lal vs Hans Raj

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

Hans Raj. landlord, sought the ejectment of the tenant Jagdish Lal from the shop, in dispute, on the grounds of the change of user and impairing materially its value and utility. It was alleged in the eviction application that the shop, in dispute, was let out for carrying on the business of a ration depot, but the tenant had installed a flour-mill (chakki) and a grinding machine there and had, thus changed its user without the consent of the landlord and that as a result, he had materially impaired the value and utility thereof. In the written statement, it was pleaded that right from the inception of the tenancy, the tenant had installed one grinder for atta and another grinder for spices. He never installed a chakki or a four-mill in the demised premises. It was denied that he had materially impaired the value or utility thereof by the alleged installations. It was also pleaded by him that no specific purpose of the business was stipulated while executing the rent note, Exhibit A.W. 4/B and, therefore, the question of change of user of the premises did not arise. The Rent Controller found that the tenant had put the premises, in dispute, for a use other than the one for which they were rented out, i.e., they were rented out for running a shop whereas the tenant had installed an atta chakki therein which was run by a 15-horse power electric motor. It was also found that the value and utility thereof had been materially impaired by him by installing the said machine. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of the change of user. On the question of materially impairing the value and utility thereof, the finding of the Rent Controller was reversed. Ultimately, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since in the rent note, no specific purpose for letting out the shop was mentioned, the question of change of user thereof as such did not arise. According to the learned counsel the petitioner was still doing the business of a ration depot and in addition thereto if he had installed an atta chakki also therein, that, by itself, did not amount to the change of the user thereof and as such, the eviction order could not be passed against the tenant on that basis. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Ram Dayal v. Ram Charan Dass 1984 (1) Rent, C.R. 282, Santosh Kumar v. Pawan Kumar 1982 (2) Rent L.R. 486, Maharaj Kishan Kesar v. Milkha Singh 1966 Cur. L.S. 273 and Sikandar Lal v. Amrit Lal (1984) 86 P.L.R. 1(FB). Reliance was also placed on Ram Saroop v. Janki Dass 1976 Rent C.R. 576. On the other band, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the building was let out as a shop and, therefore, the same could be used as such only, i.e., for doing the trading activities there only whereas the tenant had started running atta chakki which was a clear change of user thereof from the one for which it was let out to the tenant. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Des Raj v. Sham Lal (1980) 82 P.L.R. 647, Behari Lal v. Smt. Chandrawati AIR 1966 All. 541, Daya Singh v. Smt Shanta Anand 1989 (2) Rent L.R. 424, Telu Ram v. Om Parkash Garg (1971) 73 P.L.R. 1 and Ram Parkash v. Nathu Ram 1984 (1) Rent L.R. 224. The learned counsel also challenged the finding of the Appellate Authority on the question of impairing the value and utility of this demised premises.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case law cited at the bar.

On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that in the shop, in dispute, which is 11 1/2'' x 6 1/2'' in dimensions, the tenant has installed an atta chakki which is run by a 15 horse power electric motor, It is the common case of the parties that vide rent note, Exhibit A.W. 4/B, the premises were let out as a shop. Thus, it is quite evident that the tenant was entitled to run the same as a shop doing any business therein. However, in addition to the running of the shop as such he has also installed an atta chakki therein which is run by, a 15-horse power electric motor which, evidently, could not be said to be the business activity; rather it is an industrial activity. On the facts and circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the landlord while letting out the demised premises as a shop would have also agreed that atta chakki to be run by electric power may also be installed therein. Thus, it is a clear case of the change of user of the premises. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Telu Ram''s case (supra), that so far as the sale of books is concerned, that is a commercial activity whereas the business of printing is an industrial activity. Moreover, the business of printing cannot be said to be a part of the business of sale of books. It is also unlikely that the landlord while letting the shop for sale of books and merchandise would have agreed, at the time of the letting, that a printing press to be run by electic power, be fixed on the premises. The tenant was, therefore, held in that case liable to be ejected u/s 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Trading and manufacturing have different connotations. Trade is the exchange or sale of goods whereas manufacture is the making of goods by a mechanical or industrial process. Running a flour-mill is substantially a process of manufacture, as the mill grinds corn into flour and thereby makes a new product. Reference in this behalf may be made to Behari Lal''s case (supra). Thus, in the present case, from the trading activity, i.e., running the ration depot, the tenant has started manufacturing activity, i e., the installation of an atta chakki and the grinding machine, which cannot be said to be the trading activity for which purpose the shop was let out to the tenant. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are clearly distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Besides, it will be a question of fact in each case, to be determined on the basis of the evidence on the record, as to whether the purpose for which the premises were let out has been changed by the tenant or not. In the present case, on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found that the tenant had changed the user of the demised premises from the one for which they were let out to him. I do not find any impropriety or illegality therein as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. In view of this conclusion, the finding of the Appellate Authority that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises need not be gone into.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any and the advance rent for three months are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month along with an undertaking, in writing, that he will vacate the premises after the expiry of the said period of three months and shall hand over the vacant possession thereof to the landlord.