Ram Niwas vs Rattan Lal and Another

Alok Singh, J.—Tenant has invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 15(6) of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the order dated 09.12.1995 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Rohtak, whereby appeal filed by the landlords was allowed and tenant was directed to be evicted from the shop in dispute.

The brief facts of the present case are that respondents have filed eviction petition against the tenant - revisionist herein contended, inter-alia, therein that revisionist was a tenant in the tenanted premises at the rate of 1000/- and tenant has not paid rent from 04.01.1989 to 03.01.1990 and advance rent w.e.f. 04.01.1990 to 03.01.1991, hence, made himself liable to be evicted; tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the shop; tenant has sublet the premises to different persons for carrying out the business; tenant has changed the user of the shop as godown.

Tenant - revisionist herein contested the eviction petition by way of filing the written statement and denied all the contentions raised by the landlords.

Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 18.10.1993 dismissed the eviction petition having found that tenant is not in arrears of rent; Landlords could not prove that tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the shop. Learned Rent Controller further recorded that since shop in question is in the Anaj Mandi and as per the tradition, front portion of the shop in Anaj Mandi is always used for the `Gaddi'' and rear portion of the shop is always used to store the grains, hence, by storing the grains in the rear portion of the shop, does not amount to change of user.

Learned Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 09.12.1995 has held that since tenant -revisionist has been allotted new shop in the new Anaj Mandi and is carrying on the food-grains Aarath business therein, hence storage of grains in the demised shop in the Old Anaj Mandi is amount to change of user from shop to godown.

Feeling aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority, tenant has filed the present petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of the record, I find that shop in question was let out to the tenant in the year 1963. Right from 1963, tenant is using the shop for carrying on the Aarath business. Right from the very inception of the tenancy, front portion of the shop was being used as Gaddi and rest of the rear portion is being used for storing the food-grains. In the opinion of this Court, it is very common throughout in India, in Food-grain market, shop-keepers have their counter (Gaddi) on the front portion of the shops and in the rear portion of the shops, food-grains are stored. In the opinion of this Court, merely because tenant has been allotted new shop in the New Anaj Mandi will not amount to change of user of the demised shop from the shop to godown. Since major portion of the shop from the very inception of the tenancy is being used to store the foodgrains, hence, it would not amount to change of the user of the tenanted premises.

In the opinion of this Court, order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is not sound in law and deserved to be set aside.

Present petition is allowed. Impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority is set aside and judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller is restored.