A landlord cannot evict a tenant for change of user, impairment of value or utility, or subletting if the landlord has consented to or acquiesced in the tenant's actions.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.1980 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, who affirmed the order dated 24.8.1979 passed by the Rent Controller, Jagadhri, who dismissed the application of Bawa Daswandia Singh under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) read with Haryana Urban (Control of Rent-Eviction) Act 1973.

2. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner:-

Bawa Daswandha Singh petitioner (landlord) filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of respondent Nos. 1 to 8 from the premises situated in the Yamunanagar as described in the heading of the petition and it was alleged that he was the owner and landlord of the premises consisting of residential quarters and vacant land situated near Bharat Starch and Chemicals Ltd., Yamunanagar, as shown in the plaint attached with the petition. Mana Singh father of the respondent took on rent one room, kitchen and a small kothri for one year at a rental value of Rs. 200/- per month. Later on he took three quarters along with the vacant land lying there from the petitioner at a rental value of Rs. 100/- per month besides water tax and house tax which had not been assessed by that time. The quarters were meant for the residence and were leased out for residence alone. The tenant was not to raise permanent or temporary construction on the demised premises without the previous consent in writing of the landlord. Said Mana Singh died long back leaving behind the respondents, who are his sons and daughters, as legal representatives. A though all the respondents are not in possession of the demised premises, yet in order to avoid all complications and remove all doubts they have been served with notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy in their favour with effect from 31.8.1972 and the respondents were requested to vacate the demised premises by 31.8.1972. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in their reply pleaded that the demised premises had been taken for the purpose of business and not for the purpose of residence and that the owners are merely residing for the purpose of guarding the factory. The construction over the demised premises was raised with the consent of the landlord. Ejectment of the respondents has also been sought on the ground that the premises were leased out to Mana Singh for the purpose of residence and he was not allowed to alter or construct any permanent or temporary structure on the demised premises. The respondents and their father have without the consent in writing constructed permanent building on the demised premises and have thus changed the user of the property. It was also pleaded by the landlord that the respondents and their father have constructed godowns and quarters and thus have converted the vacant land into building. It has also been pleaded that the respondents have impaired the value and utility of the property. The respondents have further separated themselves inter se and it amounts to subletting or transfer of the rights in each parcel of the property. The landlord also pleaded that he requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. The ground of non-payment of rent was also pressed into service and it was pleaded that the respondents had neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1970. It may be mentioned here that the main petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed on 3.4.1973.

3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. It was contested by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 who pleaded in their written statement that the petitioner was the landlord and Sarvshri Bachan Singh, Jaswant Singh and Jeet Singh and Man Mohan Singh were the tenants. Deceased Mana Singh along with his sons in the year 1950 or 1951 occupied the premises as a tenant under the petitioner for the purpose of running a factory at the