Ram Chander vs Banwari Lal

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a landlord''s revision petition and has been directed against the order dated 9th August, 1982 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jind, which reversed the order dated 25th September, 1981 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jind, who allowed the application of Shri Ram Chander and passed the ejectment order directing the tenant to vacate the demised premises within two months from the date of passing of the said order.

The brief facts of the case are that Shri Ram Chander filed an ejectment application u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (here-in-after referred to as ''the Act'') against Shri Banwari Lal and Messrs Moti Ram Kumar, Timber Merchants, Jind Mandi, by inter alia alleging that he is the owner of the shop in dispute situated at Jind. The same was let out vide rent note dated 20th January, 1978. The shop consists of three ''khans'' along with a verandah of northern side. According to the landlord, the tenant has not paid the rent w.e.f. 1.4.1979 to 31.12.1979 totaling Rs. 750/- at the rate of Rs. 83.33 per month. It is alleged by the landlord that the tenant is running a factory in the said shop. The ejectment has been sought on the ground of change of user by inter alia alleging that the premises in question was given on rent for the purpose of running a business of timber but the tenant has installed a cutter machine in the verandah and has further set up a lathe which is being run by an electric motor. This has been done by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord and thus it amounts to change of user. It was further alleged by the landlord that with the running of the said machine the condition of his building has been adversely affected. It creates sound and noise. He is residing in the upper storey of the said building. It has become a source of nuisance for him and to the neighbours. Therefore, the respondent-tenant is liable to be evicted.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents who filed the reply and denied the allegations made in the petition. The execution of the rent note dated 20th January, 1978 has been admitted. According to the respondents, the shop is in their possession since long. The annual rental of the said shop is Rs. 1000/-. Earlier the landlord applied for fixation of fair rent of the shop and in those proceedings a compromise dated 20th January, 1978 took place and the annual rent of the shop was increased from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 1000/-. The tenants admitted that they had fixed a small saw machine which was installed by him 8-9 years ago for the purpose of cleaning the wood. It was further pleaded by the tenants that on these very grounds the landlord had earlier made an application for their ejectment but the same was dismissed on 20th January, 1978 and on the same day the annual rent was enhanced from Rs. 750/- Rs. 1000/-. The respondents also denied the other allegations regarding nuisance and finally prayed for the dismissal of the ejectment application.

The learned Rent Controller framed the following two issues :

Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute for the reasons stated in para 3 of the petition ? PA

Relief.

The parties led evidence in support of their case and the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 25th September, 1981 allowed the ejectment application and ordered the eviction of (he tenant on the ground of change of user by mainly alleging that the property was let out for me business of timber but the respondent tenant has installed a cutter machine and it tan-tamounts to change to user. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Jind and vide the impugned order dated 9th August, 1982, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the tenant and set aside the order of the teamed Rent Controller and dismissed the petition u/s 13 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the present revision by the landlord.

This appeal was filed by Shri N.C. Jain, Advocate, who subsequently became a Judge of the High Court. As per rules of the High Court, notice was given to the petitioner Shri Ram Chander to prosecute this petition, but in spite of the notice given to him, he has not turned up. In these circumstances, I am disposing of this revision with the assistance rendered by the learned Counsel for the respondent Shri Bhoop Singh, who has been heard and with whose assistance, 1 have gone through the record of this case as well as of the lower Court.

As I stated above, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground of change of user. In this case it is proved on the file that tenant was doing the business of timber. Earlier the landlord filed an ejectment application against the tenant on the ground of change of user but that was dismissed on 20.1.1978 and since then the annual rent of the said shop was raised from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 1000/-.

Now let us examine whether there is any violation on the part of the tenant. The Rent Note is Exhibit A-1 on the file. It is dated 20th January, 1978 and on the same day a compromise took place. The rent note was typed. Clause 4 of the rent note shows that the shop was given on rent for the purpose of Karobar (business). Subsequently there is a writing with the help of ink and the words are "Barai Timber Merchant Lee" meaning thereby that the shop was for the purpose of timber business. Now the point for determination is whether in the rent note there is any averment that in the shop any saw mill has already been installed or that the landlord has given the permission to the tenant to put up a saw mill. Still the point for determination is if the tenant has put up a saw mill and even has taken an electric connection would it amount to change of user ? The answer to this question would be in the negative. We are living in a developing society. First we should examine the letting purpose. If the letting purpose is incorporated in the document in writing, that agreement between the landlord and tenant must prevail. If there is any violation on the part of the tenant with regard to the letting purpose, such violation will be only a violation of the contract. In the present case, if al t the concession is granted by the landlord, still there is no breach of the contract because the letting purpose was wide and extensive when it was agreed upon the parties that the shop is going to be let out on rent for Karobar (business). The word ''business'' connotes and covers its field in a wide ambit. Even if all the concession is given that the premises in question was let out for the purpose of running a timber business, still with the installation of the saw mill in some portion of the demised premises will not change the letting purpose, which is the timber business. In order to promote the business, some sort of machinery has been installed by the tenant which shall not be treated as a breach of the contract and, in this manner, the sanctity of the contract is not violated. This aspect of the case has been rightly examined by the first Appellate Authority. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Revision dismissed