Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 110 (PNJ)

Satya Prakash Mehta v. Naresh Kumar

2003-01-22

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. This is landlords revision petition challenging the order passed by the appellate Authority whereby the appeal of the tenant was accepted and the ejectment petition was dismissed. 2. The petitioner has sought the ejectment of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and has changed the user i.e. from residence to commercial i.e. book binding. Learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition. It found that the tenant had sub-let the premises to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 changed the user of the premises. However, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding on both the account and, thus, the petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the findings recorded by the appellate Authority. 3. As per petitioner, he rented out five rooms on the ground floor of double storey portion of his residential house situated in Lawan Mohalla, Jalandhar to respondent No. I at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- for residential purposes for a period of 11 months. The said document has been produced on record as Ex. P2. The petitioner further alleged that the premises were being used for business purposes of book binding and card board box making and, thus, the premises were being used for the purpose other than that of the same were let out. The petitioner also alleged that respondent No. 1, without written consent, had sublet the premises to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Parveen Kumar Jain and Devi Dass. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 initially put in appearance but subsequently were proceeded against exparte when none appeared on their behalf. However, respondent No. 1 contested the petition and denied that the premises in dispute were rented out for residential purposes. He stated that he took the premises for business purposes and was running his business there since its inception. Allegations of subletting the premises in favour of Surinder Kumar as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were denied. 5. Short question which arises is whether the premises were rented out for residential purposes or for business purposes as alleged by the tenant. It is admitted by the parties that the tenant has not denied the rent note. However, he has disputed the document admitted by both the parties as admissible in evidence. 2 and 3 were denied. 5. Short question which arises is whether the premises were rented out for residential purposes or for business purposes as alleged by the tenant. It is admitted by the parties that the tenant has not denied the rent note. However, he has disputed the document admitted by both the parties as admissible in evidence. Assume, the document was compulsory registerable but it could not be disputed that such a rent note executed for a period of 11 months could be read in evidence for collateral purpose i.e. to find out the purpose of tenancy. It has been held by Honble Supreme Court in Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chander Kanta Khosla, AIR 1991 SC 744 that the purpose of subletting the premises is collateral purpose. 6. The premises have been described as haveli in the rent note. Haveli is a residential building. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Des Raj v. Sham Lal, (1980)82 P.L.R. 647 (F.B.) that if there is no purpose of letting out mentioned in the rent note, then the description of the building in the rent note is relevant to find out the purpose of letting out the premises. The following observations from the said judgment would be relevant to note:- "9. The Act categorieses further the building into non-residential building, residential building and scheduled building. If in a given lease deed, the demised building is identified as non residential building, in such a case even when no express purpose is mentioned in the lease deed, the identification of the building as non-residential building would at least restrict its use to only such purposes as a non-residential building can be put to and would at least exclude the use of non-residential building as exclusively residential building. In the reverse case, where the building is identified as residential building, this identification would indicate the purpose for which the demised building can be used which can only be the residential purpose and if the same is used for non-residential purposes even partly, it would amount to the change of user for reasons which would be set out in detail a little later. 10. Further, a residential building can be identified in a given lease-deed as house, Kothi, bungalow, villa or Palace etc. 10. Further, a residential building can be identified in a given lease-deed as house, Kothi, bungalow, villa or Palace etc. All these terms, in my opinion, would be indicative of only one use being intended of the demised building, that is, residential purpose. 11. Hence, in my opinion, it would be utterly illogical to say that the identification of a demised building in a rent note by itself is not indicative of the use to which the demised building was intended to be put by the lessee. 12. Accordingly, if a demised building is identified as a house in a lease-deed, it would be taken that the parties had used the expression house in the sense in which the "house is understood in common parlance or as indicated by its dictionary meaning. Similar would be the situation where the expression shop is used. In such a case, the parties would be taken to have used the expression shop as understood in common parlance and the meaning given to the same in the dictionaries." 7. Since the haveli is a place of residence and has been so described in the rent note, therefore, the purpose of its letting out is only for residence. The aforesaid judgment was noticed by the appellate Authority but still it found that the demised premises is only consisting of 5 rooms without any bathroom and kitchen and, thus, it can not be treated a building meant for residential purpose. Once the parties have described the building as haveili in the rent note, it will not be open for the tenant to dispute the description of the building. However, the parties are bound by the terms in the rent note which describe the demised premises as Haveli. Therefore, in view of the binding precedent of Des Rajs case (supra), findings receded by the appellate Authority are clearly erroneous and suffer from material irregularity. 8. Since admittedly the tenant is using the premises for the purpose of book binding i.e. the purpose other than that of letting out the premises, therefore, the tenant has made himself liable for eviction on account of change of user of the premises from residential to a non residential purpose. 9. However, the finding of appellate authority on the question whether the tenant has sublet the premises to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is based upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. 9. However, the finding of appellate authority on the question whether the tenant has sublet the premises to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is based upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. None of the neighbouers have been produced to show that either Surinder Kumar or respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are exclusively in possession of demised premises. Such being the finding of fact, no fault can be found out in the judgment of appellate Court on this point. 10. Consequently, I allow the present revision petition and order the tenant to vacate the premises within a period of three months. However, there will be no order as to costs.