The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of revision to interfere under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is limited to cases when the findings recorded by the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority are without any evidence. The court emphasized the need to maintain a distinction between a revision and an appeal, and outlined the limited grounds for revision.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is landlords petition filed under Sub-section 6 of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity the Act) against the judgment of reversal dated 30.5.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hissar, holding that there was neither any material change of user nor any material impairment because there was no rent note in existence showing the purpose, for which the demised premises was let-out. The tenancy was admittedly oral. It has also been found that the demised premises, which is a shop was taken on rent for selling iron. The change of use as alleged at the time of filing the ejectment petition was that the tenant-respondent has been selling steel and aluminium utensils and stoves in the demised premises. The appellate authority held on the basis of a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal, (1984)86 P.L.R. 1 that it would not amount to change of user because the subsequent use of the shop was ancillary to the original purpose. The observation of the Appellate Authority reads as under:-

"First, it is not proved beyond doubt that the shop was specifically rented out for sale of iron articles. The word etc. connotes that the it was left out for running business of iron and alike purposes. It is also admitted that the appellant is now selling utensils of aluminium, iron and stainless steel in the shop. Previously he has been dealing in iron goods like Tasla, Tawa, Degchi etc. as admitted by Bishan Kumar RW-1. But this is no change of user in view of the latest law on the point. It is contained in Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal, (1984)86 P.L.R. I. a Full Bench ruling of our own High Court which lays down that if subsequent use of the premises is merely ancillary to the specific original purpose so allied and akin to each other, it would amply no change of user. The evidence of the petitioner is unsatisfactory on the point of change of user. Vinod Kumar through whom the petitioner filed the ejectment petition and who filed the Vakaltanama in this case has not come in the witness box to depose on the material facts. No neighbour in whose presence the tenancy was created has been produced. Moreover, in the ejectment petition, it has not been alleged as to when the alleged change of user took place. Similarly, there is no evidence to that effect."

2. The second ground that there was material impairment in the utility of the building by fixing steel shutters in place of wooden slippers was also held insufficient for ordering the eviction of the tenant-respondent. The view of the Appellate Authority is reflected in para 10, which reads as Xinder;-

"Now taking up the third ground regarding materially diminishing the utility of the building by fixing shutters in place of wooden slippers, the statement of Ashok Kumar PW-1 can be referred to. He has stated on 11.11.1982 that the appellant has fixed the shutters 2 or 3 years back by which there has been damage to the shop but on the other hand Kharati Lal PW-2 says that shutters were fixed during emergency. This discrepancy cannot be reconciled. The evidence of the appellant is that this change of shutters from the wooden slippers was made by the landlord Sheo Narain himself who is no more in the world. Therefore, this allegation is not proved. Even it be taken that wooden doors were replaced by shutters, there is no evidence to the effect that this change diminished the value and utility of the building."

3. Mr. V.K.Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord-petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below are liable to be reversed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in Sub-section 6 of Section 15 of the Act in as much as once it is found that the shop was let out for the specific purpose of running an iron business then it would be violative of the terms of agreement to change its use by selling steel/aluminium utens