Manufacturing pens in a premises rented for running a tea stall amounts to a change of user under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Naresh Chander Jain, J.

1. This order of mine will dispose of two Revision Petition Nos. 1861 of 1980 and 2795 of 1980 as both of them arise out of the order of the Appellate Authority by which the tenant has been ordered to be evicted on the ground of change user. In Civil Revision Petition No. 1861 of 1980 the tenant is petitioner while in Civil Revision No. 2795 of 1980 the landlord is the petitioner. The tenant has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority regarding the change of user is incorrect whereas the landlord in the other revision petition has challenged the finding of the Appellate Authority on the point of non-payment of rent. I would first like to determine the question as to whether the landlord has been able to prove the ground of change of user or not.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. It is the case of the landlord in the ejectment petition that the shop in dispute was given to the tenant for the purpose of running the election office of Jan Sangh and that he stared using it for a tea stall and then further changed the user to manufacturing of pens. The defence of the tenant is that the shop in dispute was not given to him for running the election office of the Jan Sangh but for running the tea stall and that only a small table has been kept on the rear-most part of the shop where he had been making pens not on industrial basis but on a small scale handicraft which too has been closed by him. Both the authorities below have discussed the point of change of user under issue No. 6-A and they have found that the shop was given to the tenant for running a tea-stall and that by starting the business of manufacturing of pens, he has used the premises for a purposes other than the one for which the premises were leased out to him and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted therefrom. For arriving at the aforesaid finding, reliance was placed by the authorities below on two major factors. Firstly, it was stated by the tenants witness Piare Lal R.W. 3 that on the back portion of the disputed shop fountain pens machines are installed. The second major factor was that it has been admitted in the pleadings by the tenant that the shop was given for running the tea-stall and that he started using the same for manufacturing the pens - may be his case was that it was by way of hobby. After recording the afore-mentioned finding, the Appellate Authority placed reliance on two judicial pronouncements of this Honble Court reported as Telu Ram v. Om Parkash Garg, 1970 RCR 843, and Mehta Baldev Datt v. Puran Singh and others, 1980(10 RCR 130; 1979(2) Rent Law Reporter 193.

3. Shri Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the tenant has vehemently argued that the landlord has not been able to prove that the demised premises were given to the tenant for running the Election Office of Jan Sangh and, therefore, the landlord cannot be legally said to have proved his case of change of user. I am afraid, I would not be able to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel. Once it has been specifically pleaded by the tenant himself that the shop was given to him for running the tea-stall this would be the initial purpose of letting out in the eye of law and, therefore, the non-proof on the part of the landlord regarding letting out of the demised premises for the election purposes is of no consequence. The position might well have been different it the tenant had not admitted in his written statement that the premises were given for running a tea-stall and that on the rear portion of the shop he had started manufacturing pens. The stand of the parties is now narrowed down to this much controversy as to whether by staring the manufacturing of pens, the tenant can be held guilty of change of user in the eye of law and within the meaning and ambit of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for