Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed against an order dated 8.9.1982 passed by the learned Appellate Authority u/s 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act), whereby an appeal of the tenant Petitioner against an order of his ejectment from the shop in dispute passed by the learned Rent Controller on 22.8.1981 was dismissed.

Jai Bhagwan landlord-Respondent filed an application u/s 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the Petitioner, inter alia on the ground that the latter has used the shop for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out to him It was averred that the shop was let out to the Petitioner for running a liquor vend vide rent note dated 19.4.1975 but in contravention of the terms and conditions contained therein he started the business of general merchandise in the demised shop. Both the authorities below reached at a concurrent finding of fact that this ground for ejectment stood established.

In the present revision petition the contention raised is that irrespective of the specific purpose for letting out the shop as given in the rent note the same could be used by the tenant for carrying on any business so long as it is being used as a shop. This contention has no force in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sikandar Lal of Ambala City v. Amrit Lal (1984) 86 P. L. R. 1 (F. B.)., wherein it has been held that the specified original purpose for which a premises is let out to a tenant cannot be extended by adding to it any and every allied purpose thereto The same must be confined within the limitation of being either a part and parcel of or ancillary to the original purpose. In the present case admittedly the shop was let out for running a liquor vend The business of general merchandise to which the tenant has shifted his occupation in the shop is neither a part and parcel of nor ancillary to the business of running a liquor vend. The contention raised, therefore, is without any force.

Consequently, the order of eviction passed by she authorities below is upheld and this revision petition is dismissed. The Petitioner is, however, allowed three months'' time to vacate and hand over the vacant posession of the shop in dispute to the Respondent on the conditions that he deposits the entire amount of arrears of rent along with future rent for three months within one month from today in the Court of the Rent Controller for payment to the Respondent On his failure to comply with this condition the Respondent shall be entitled to take execution of the eviction order forthwith and recover vacant possession of the demised shop. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.