Rameshwar Dass vs Hakim Ram Sarup Garg

Naresh Chander Jain, J.—This revision petition is directed against the orders of the authorities below by which the ejectment application of the Petitioner-landlord has been dismissed.

The Petitioner landlord filed an application for eviction of the Respondent-tenant on several grounds, out of which the surviving ground is the change of user. The ground of eviction taken up against the Respondent is that he took the demised premises for doing the business of ''hikmat'' and that he has changed the user by utilizing a portion of the shop for storing and selling of ''acid''. Before the learned Rent Controller, the defence of the Respondent-tenant was that he has been using the ''acid'' in the medicines. Both the authorities below have concurrently found that the acid which was being stored and sold was being utilized in the medicines. It has further been found that no rebuttal evidence has been led by the landlord that the acid is not being used in preparing the medicines.

Shri H.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that may be, the acid is being used for preparing the medicines but by storing and selling the same, the Respondent must be held guilty of change of user and, therefore, the ground for eviction is made out. In support of his argument he has relied upon Ghansham Dass, Proprietor M/s Janta Gas Depot v. Gurdwara Shri Guru Nank Sat Singh Sabha Regd 1983 (2) R. C. J. 295, in which the selling of oxygen gas cylinder which was highly inflammable item was held to be change of user from the business of cloth. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The ratio of law laid down in Ghansham Dass''s case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. Acid is neither highly inflamable item nor can it be said to be detriment to the premises On the other hand, it is held in Mohan Lal Vs. Jai Bhagwan, while interpreting this very provision of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 that change of business from selling of liquor to the business of general merchandise does not amount to change of user. It has further been held that if the change of user does not cause may mischief or detriment or impairment of the demised premises and the business is allied, the tenant cannot be held guilty of the change of user attracting the mischief of Section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the Act. Moreover, both the authorities below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that no change of user is involved.

In view of my aforesaid observation, there is no force in the revision petition which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.