Rajinder Lal and Others vs Sant Ram

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—The Controller allowed a petition filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant. The Appellate Authority allowed the tenant''s appeal and dismissed the eviction petition. The landlord now applies in revision.

The Petitioner, Rajinder Lal, filed a petition u/s 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for the eviction of the Respondent, Sant Ram, from the premises described as "eastern half of Shop No. 73/2, Ram Bazar, Simla", which had been let out to him by the Petitioner''s father, Parma Nand. The petition was brought on the ground (a) that Sant Ram had used the accommodation for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, and (b) that he had made material alterations and additions in the premises which had impaired the utility of the building. The petition was resisted by Sant Ram, who while admitting that he had been using the rear portion of the shop as a kitchen asserted that he had obtained the oral consent of Parma Nand for that purpose. He also denied that he had made any alterations and additions to the premises which could be said to have impaired the utility of the building.

The Controller, by his order dated August 23, 1973, held that Sant Ram was using the accommodation for a purpose other than that for which it was let, but that he had not effected any alterations or additions which were likely to materially impair the utility of the premises. By reason of the finding on the first ground, the petition was allowed and Sant Ram was directed to put Rajinder Lal in possession of the accommodation.

Sant Ram appealed, and by its order dated August 4, 1976, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Controller and held that the tenant was not using the accommodation for a purpose other than that for which it had been let. The Appellate Authority observed that Ex. P. 1, which contained the terms on which the accommodation had been let, did not mention the purpose for which it was leased and there was no indication therein whether the lease was for a residential or a non-residential purpose. He points out that the mere recital in that document that the premises was a shop does not mean that it was let out for the purpose of business only Analysing the evidence on the record, he has come to the finding that Sant Ram was not using the premises for a purpose other than the one for which it was let.

In this revision petition, the contention of learned Counsel for Rajinder Lal is that the Appellate Authority has misdirected itself in law in the approach adopted by it to the case.

In my opinion, the contention is sound and must be accepted. It is beyond dispute that what was let out was a shop. That clearly points to the nature of occupation envisaged. Section 13(2)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act enables a landlord to apply for the ejectment of a tenant on the ground that he has without the written consent of the landlord put the accommodation to a purpose for which it was not let. The case of Rajinder Lal is that no such written permission was ever accorded. The defence of Sant Ram is that he had been permitted by Parma Nand to use the accommodation as a residence in addition to its being used as a shop. There is no evidence whatever to establish that written permission was given to Sant Ram. The statute expressly requires permission to be in writing, in order perhaps to provide clear and indisputable evidence in regard to the use of the premises and to obviate any factual dispute arising out of an oral agreement in the matter. The statutory requirement must receive strict compliance. Consequently, the defence set up by Sant Ram must fail.

In the circumstances, this revision petition succeeds.

The revision petition is allowed, the order dated August 4, 1976 of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Controller dated August 23, 1973 is restored. There is no order as to costs. Three weeks from today are allowed to the Respondent to vacate the premises.