Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1212 (PNJ)

Gian Chand v. Ganeshi Lal

2002-11-13

AMAR DUTT

body2002
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. This landlords revision seeks to challenge the orders dated 24th of November, 1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Malerk-otla, dismissing his ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and that of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur dated 21.5.1987 rejecting the appeal filed by him to challenge the aforesaid order. 2. Gian Chand petitioner had sought the ejectment of the respondent, who was occupying the demised premises as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, as indicated in the rent note dated 5.9.1969, on the ground of non payment of rent with effect from 1.9.1975 and house tax from 1.12.1969, it was also asserted that the demised premises had been let out for residential purposes, but its ground floor had been converted into a godown and sublet to various persons and on the first floor of the building the respondent had started refining the gold and silver, which conversion had diminished the value and utility of the premises in dispute. 3. The application was contested by the respondent with the assertion that the premises were non-residential in nature and were situated in a Bazar. According to the respondent, these were taken on rent for residential as well as for running business. The business of refining gold and silver is being done on the ground floor while on the first floor he is residing with his family. The arrears of rent, as claimed, were tendered on the first date of hearing. The assertions regarding conversion of the ground floor into a godown and subletting of the same, were also denied. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- (1) Whether the demised premises were taken on rent by the respondent for residential and non-residential purposes? If so, its effect? (2) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in paras No. 4 to 7? OPA. (3) Relief. 5. The Rent Controller decided both the issues against the landlord. In appeal, the view taken by the Rent Controller was affirmed. If so, its effect? (2) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in paras No. 4 to 7? OPA. (3) Relief. 5. The Rent Controller decided both the issues against the landlord. In appeal, the view taken by the Rent Controller was affirmed. The Appellate Authority, like the Rent Controller had come to the conclusion that though premises have been described as residential in the rent note, yet there was abundant evidence on the record to show that it was from the inception of tenancy that the demised premises had been put to residential cum-non-residential use. He relied upon on the rent receipts Exhibits R2/2 to R2/44 that had been issued by the landlord in which the building was described as a shop and Cho-baras. The continued user of the premises for residential as well as non-residential purpose from the date of inception of tenancy was relied upon by the Appellate Authority to infer acquiescence of the landlord for the use of which the premises had been put as well as the waiver of right to seek ejectment. The plea of sub letting was rejected for want of proof in support of the assertion. 6. I have heard Ms. Alka Sarin, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and with her assistance have gone through the record of the case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any piece of evidence on the record which would impel this Court to come to the conclusion that the inferences drawn by the Courts below were not warranted from the facts and circumstances of the case. The conclusions, consequently, do not call for any interference by this Court and the same have to be affirmed. The revision fails and is dismissed.