Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 264 (PNJ)

Bansi Lal v. Rangi Lal

2003-02-12

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2003
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Learned Appellate Authority, Hissar (appointed under Haryana Urban Control of Rent Restriction Act, 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Vide judgment dated 18.9.84, the Learned Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated 23.8.83, whereby an order of eviction was passed against the present appellant from the disputed property. 2. Property in dispute is a shop in Sadar Bazar, Hansi and was rented out to Bansi Lal-tenant, for a period of 11 months i.e. 1.7.73 to 30.5.74, vide rent note dated 10.7.73 on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The landlord instituted the petition on the following three grounds :- i) Non-payment of arrears of rent for the period 1.5.81 to date i.e. 20.7.81. ii) Change of user of the premises from the shop to godown. iii) Misuse of the demised premises by the tenant by way of breaking the plaster of floor and walls and thereby diminishing the value and utility of the shop. 3. While having permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of their case, the Learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground of change of user of the disputed property from shop to Godown. 4. The Learned Rent Controller while passing the order of eviction held as under :- "27. Apart from the above discussion, RW-4 Bansi Lal has himself admitted in his examination-in-chief itself, that he had fixed the board `godown. No sale, on the shop in dispute and he has exclusively admitted that the demised premises is used as Godown, therefore, in view of the admission of the respondent himself in his written reply as well as in the statement stated by him in the Court on oath, he cannot resile from the fact that the demised premises is used as `godown. This particular fact is further supported by the report of Learned Local Commissioner, who has appeared as AW2 and has deposed that the demised premises is used exclusively for `Godown. Once the respondent has himself admitted this part of the fact, I feel no necessity to discuss other oral evidence in this behalf. 28. Learned Counsel for the respondent has stressed that the rent deed Ex. Once the respondent has himself admitted this part of the fact, I feel no necessity to discuss other oral evidence in this behalf. 28. Learned Counsel for the respondent has stressed that the rent deed Ex. A2 does not stand proved on record, but on the other hand, to refute his claim, Learned counsel for the applicant has examined Suresh Kumar, the petition writer, as AW3, who has well proved the rent deed as it was scribed by him and he has stated specifically that the contents of the said document were read over and explained to the parties. Bansi Lal has further supported the contents Ex. A2, therefore, in my opinion the rent deed Ex. A2 completely stands proved on record. 29. In view of the discussion herein before, it is established on record that the shop in dispute was leased out to the respondent for running a `shop and he has changed the `shop in dispute into a Godown without the `written consent, of the landlord which is contrary to the rent deed Ex. A2 and hence for the reasons discussed above, his eviction must follow on the ground of `change of user and further the landlord is not at all estopped from filing the present application. Therefore, both these issues are decided in favour of the applicant and against the respondent." 5. The above finding recorded by the Rent Controller as already noticed were affirmed by the Appellate Authority while relying upon the various judgments of this Court. The Court distinguished the judgments including in the case of Baldev Sahai and others v. Charanjit Lal, 1984 Punjab Law Reporter 30, relied upon by the tenant as in those cases the factum with regard to conversion had not been admitted. 6. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I am unable to see any perverse finding recorded by the Courts below. It is a concurrent finding of the facts recorded upon proper appreciation of the evidence and in my opinion calls for no interference. 7. In the present case, in paragraph 3 of the petition, the landlord had specifically stated that premises were rented out for carrying on the business of a shop in relation to electricity goods and machines but the tenant has converted the user to a godown and has even diminished the value of the property. 7. In the present case, in paragraph 3 of the petition, the landlord had specifically stated that premises were rented out for carrying on the business of a shop in relation to electricity goods and machines but the tenant has converted the user to a godown and has even diminished the value of the property. In reply to paragraph 3 of the petition, the tenant vaguely denied the allegation and further stated as under :- "The space in that shop being insufficient the respondent had taken the shop in dispute for storing Electric and Machinery goods. The sale of goods had always been taking place at the first shop and this shop been used by the respondent, from the inception of the tenancy, for storing goods and for effecting minor repairs to electric goods and machinery. The respondent is not at all liable to eviction on this ground." 8. Ex. A2 is the rent note which specifically uses the expression `premises rented out for carrying on business in the shop. Parties obviously cannot lead oral evidence contrary to a written document. Once the document was exhibited on record, relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties, the only question which remained to be determined by the Rent Controller was whether there any was change of user from shop to godown or not. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Des Raj v. Sham Lal, 1980(2) RCR(Rent) 379 (P&H) (FB) : 1980 Rent Law Reporter 243 clearly held that such conversion would tantamount to change of user. Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant/appellant while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, 1988(1) RCR(Rent) 444 (SC) : 1988(1) Punjab Law Reporter 670, contended that in the expanding concept of business now-a-days and the growing concept of departmental stores a wider construction has been given to the expression used in the statute so as to bring it within the mischief of change of user as stated in Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. The question in the present case is nowhere covered by the observations of the Honble Supreme Court and the judgment has no application, on ratio descendi. There the building was rented out for carrying on the business and changed to another business was also to be in a change of user. The question in the present case is nowhere covered by the observations of the Honble Supreme Court and the judgment has no application, on ratio descendi. There the building was rented out for carrying on the business and changed to another business was also to be in a change of user. In the present case the shop was not rented out for godown. The property was rented out for carrying on the business in the shop but has been changed to godown and even this fact has hardly disputed. 9. In the circumstances afore-stated, I am of the considered view that the concurrent findings recorded by the Controller and Appellate Authority below do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the scope of which is a very limited one. Therefore, the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. However, the petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the premises.