2004 Supreme(P&H) 875
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar, J.
Chhotey Lal
Versus
Rajinder Kumar
Civil Revision No. 702 of 1985,
Decided On : AUGUST 11, 2004
Change of user from commercial to residential without landlord's consent can lead to tenant's liability for eviction.
Headnote:
Change of User - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 15(6)
Fact of the Case:
The tenant-petitioner was ordered to be evicted due to change of user of the demised shop for residential purposes without the landlord's consent. The tenant-petitioner also violated the interim order to pay arrears of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found overwhelming evidence that the demised shop was being used for residential purposes, leading to the tenant's liability for eviction. The court also upheld the finding of violation of the interim order, resulting in the tenant's eviction.
Issues: Change of user from commercial to residential, violation of interim order
Ratio Decidendi: The dominant purpose for which the building was let out was found to be residential, leading to the tenant's liability for eviction. The court also upheld the finding of violation of the interim order, resulting in the tenant's eviction.
Final Decision: Both petitions were dismissed, and the tenant-petitioner was ordered to hand over vacant possession of the demised shop to the landlord-respondent within three months.
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two petitions, namely, Civil Revision No. 702 of 1985 and Civil Revision No. 1288 of 1986. Both the cases have arisen between the same parties. The first petition i.e. Civil Revision No. 702 of 1985 is the result of order of ejectment passed by both the Courts below. The tenant petitioner Chhote Lal (now represented by his LRs) has filed the 1st petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity the Act). In the petition challenge is to concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-petitioner was liable to be evicted from the demised shop which was let out to him for commercial purpose on the ground that he . started using the demised shop for the purpose on the ground that he started using the demised shop for the purpose of his residence as he started living there with nine members of his family. The Rent Controller in his order dated 29.1.1981 has also found merit in the order ground also, which was to the effect that there was change of user by the tenant-petitioner as he converted tailoring business to the dry-cleaning business. However, the Appellate Authority rejected the afore-mentioned grounds in its judgment dated 8.2.1985.
2. In the second case, the Rent Controller has ordered issuance of warrants of pos- session in respect of the demised shop after the tenant-petitioner had committed default in making payment of arrears of rent in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 28.2.1985 in Civil Revision No. 702 of 1985, whereby direction was issued to the tenant-petitioner to pay all the arrears of rent within a fortnight and in future it was to pay/deposit the rent on 10th of every month. 1st Petition. Before dealing with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to state few facts. The landlord-respondent filed ejectment petition No. 1872 dated 21.4.1976/80 against tenant-petitioner praying for his ejectment on vari- ous grounds under Section 13 of the Act in the Court of Rent Controller, Faridabad. Af- ter notice, reply and recording of evidence. The Rent Controller gave findings that ten- ant-petitioner had changed the user of the demised shop, inasmuch as it was rented out for tailoring purposes and the tenant-petitioner had started the dry-cleaning business. The Rent Controller further held that the tenant-petitioner had also started using the de- mised shop for the purpose of residence by inducting whole of his family consisting of nine members without the consent of the landlord-respondent. As a result of the afore- mentioned findings, the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioner. On an appeal filed by the tenant-petitioner, the Appellate Authority accepted his plea that since there was no rent note executed between the parties, it could not be held that the use of demised shop was confined to tailoring business, alone although the findings of the Rent Controller to the effect that there was change in business were accepted. However, the Appellate Authority accepted the view of the Rent Controller to the effect that the demised shop was rented out only for commercial purpose and the tenant-petitioner had started using the same for the residential purpose as nine members of the family of the tenant-petitioner were living there. On the basis of the findings the tenant- petitioner was ordered to be evicted. The repot of the Local Commissioner, Shri Jagdish Chander, Advocate, Exhibit AW12/1, along with enclosures Exhibits AW12/2 to AW12/12, has been relied upon. The Local Commissioner who visited the demised shop on 2.4.1976 had discovered various articles at the demised shop which would establish that a full fledged house was being run at the back portion. The Local Commissioner had conducted the proceedings in the presence of the parties and their respective counsel. Both the Courts below have also plac