Madan Lal vs Madan Lal

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

Madan Lal, son of Dr Amin Chand, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant, Madan Lal, inter alia on the grounds that he had changed the user of the premises in question, and had, thus, impaired their value and utility materially. According to the landlord, the premises were given on a monthly Tent of Rs. 120/- vide rent note dated April 19, 1971, Exhibit P-3, for his personal occupation whereas now he was not residing therein ; rather he was using them for the residence of his servants and business purposes. He bad effected material alterations in the premises inasmuch as be had been using the kitchen as a bath-room/urinal ; hence he had materially impaired their value and utility In the written statement, the said allegations were controverted by the tenant. It was admitted by him that the premises were taken on rent for the residence. It was maiatatned that he was still using the same for his personal use and occupation. It was denied that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the building, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had changed the user of the premises and that he had also effected material alterations and materially impaired their value and utility. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the premises were let out for residence and the tenant was still using the same for residence, though of his servants and employees. Thus, argued the Learned Counsel, it did not amount to the change of user of the premises. At the most, it could be subletting, which ground of eviction has not been taken by the landlord. It was also contended that even if the servants were using the kitchen as a bath room, it did not diminish the value and utility of the premises.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

It is evident from the rent note, Exhibit P. 3, that the premises were let out for residence. It is also in evidence and is not disputed that the tenant occupied the same for residence upto the year 1978, when he shifted to another house. Thereafter, he allowed the premises to be occupied by his servants and employees. Under the circumstances it is a clear case where there is a change of user. The premises were given to the tenant for his residence and he could not be allowed to allow his servants to occupy the same. On the facts and circumstances of the cast, it is a clear case of change of user because the building was meant for the use of the tenant whereas now the same was being used for the residence of his servants. Besides, it has been further found that the condition of the building is deteriorating because of the negligent use thereof by the servants of the tenant It has been found as a fact by inspection by the Appellate Authority that the kitchen in the premises was no longer being used as such, but was being used as a bath-room. It was also found that the same were not being used by the tenant for his residence. The premises, in question, consist of a store, kitchen and a living room, but at present, no kitchen exists there it being used as a bathroom. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the authorities below

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs However, the tenant is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises: provided all the arrears of rent, and the advance rent for two months are deposited within a fortnight with the Rent Controller with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, the premises will be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlord.