Mere change of use from one commercial activity to another, in the absence of a covenant to the contrary, would not be a ground for eviction unless injury or prejudice is caused to the landlord.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This Revision Petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987(for short the ‘Act’) is directed against the judgment dated 20.4.2012, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Shimla, Camp at Rohru whereby order passed by learned Rent Controller (I), Rohru has been reversed and consequently the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord has been ordered to be dismissed.

Brief facts may be noticed.

2. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent of the premises in dispute on the ground that he has changed the user of property thereby impairing the utility and value of the property in dispute and, as such, is liable to be ejected. It is averred that the petitioner had let out the shop i.e. premises in dispute to the respondent for running a typing institute, but respondent has converted the said premises into a Dhaba/tea stall and had also affixed the wooden shelves on the walls which amounts to material alteration thereby impairing the value and utility of the premises in question and same renders the respondent/tenant liable for ejectment.

3. The respondent resisted and contested the petition by filing reply, admitting that he has taken the premises on rent for running a typing institute and has not denied that he has started running a Dhaba but would maintain that even the typing institute is being run from the shop. It is further averred that the petition is frivolous and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

4. On 14.9.2010, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the respondent has changed he user of premises as alleged?. OPA.

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondent? OPR

3. Relief.”

5. That learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence and evaluating the same, ordered the eviction of the respondent on the ground of change of user. On appeal having been filed preferred before the appellate authority, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside resulting in dismissal of the eviction petition.

6. It is against the order passed by learned appellate authority that the present petition has been filed on the ground that the eviction petition ought to have been allowed as it was an admitted case of change of user, which in turn had caused injury or was detrimental to the building housing the tenanted premises.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

7. The petitioner-landlord in his statement of oath has specifically stated that the demised premises were let out to the respondent in the year 2000 for three years for running a type institute which fact is admitted by the respondent during his cross-examination while appearing as RW-1. The petitioner had sent notice Ext PW-1/A to the respondent specifically alleging therein that the shop had been let out to him for running a tying institute, but the same was now being run as tea stall. In reply Ext PW-1/B, respondent did not deny the said fact but stated that the shop was being used by him for running typing institute also.

8. The evidence brought on record by the parties, does clearly suggest and indicate that indeed the respondent had admitted the business of selling tea in the shop in question, thus admitting about the change of user of the shop from a typing institute to tea stall. Therefore, I proceed on the basis that the tenant has changed the user of the premises, as alleged, but then does the same automatically result as an eviction?.

9. Section 14 (2) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 reads thus:

“14. Eviction of tenants (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied-

(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the