Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 318 (PNJ)

Shakuntla v. Bhushan Parkash

2003-02-19

S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ambala dated 25.2.1987 by which the Appellate Authority has set aside the judgment passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala City dated 26.11.1985. 2. The respondents-landlord are the owners of the property in dispute having purchased the same by registered sale-deed dated 6.10.80 from Som Nath son of Ram Parsad. Petitioner No. 1 was a tenant under Som Nath at a monthly rent of Rs. 4/- of the first floor. The premises had been given on rent for the residence of petitioner No. 1. The respondents-landlord sought the eviction of the petitioners alleging that petitioner No. 1 has not paid the rent from 6.10.1981. It was also alleged that petitioner No. 1 had transferred her tenancy right without ther written consent of the petitioners and sublet the premises to petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was stated to have left the demised premises and taken residence in the house of Smt. Bhati Devi. The respondents-landlord also claimed that the petitioners had changed the user of the demised premises from residential to non-residential. They were using the premises for the business of selling Desi Ghee in the said Chaubara. The petitioners controverted the claim of the respondents. Following three issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 15.4.1983 :- 1. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted on the grounds alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special costs as alleged ? If so, how much ? OPP. 3. Relief. 3. Issue No. 1 was decided by the Rent Controller in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents-landlord. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the respondents-landlord against the petitioners as it was not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Eviction Petition was dismissed. The Appellate Authority referred the finding on issue No. 1 recorded by the Rent Controller. The petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. It is submitted by Mr. H.S. Gill that the Appellate Authority has erroneously reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. A persual of the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that findings of fact have been recorded after due appreciation of the evidence. The petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. It is submitted by Mr. H.S. Gill that the Appellate Authority has erroneously reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. A persual of the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that findings of fact have been recorded after due appreciation of the evidence. The respondents-landlord had placed on record the rent receipt Ex.D-1 which showed that the demised premises is a house. The Rent Receipt had been issued by Som Nath in favour of petitioner No. 2. Ex.P1 is the House Tax Assessment Register for the year 1981-82. In this also it is mentioned that the demised premises is a residential house. AW4, Vinod Kumar, Clerk of the H.S.E.B. had proved an application made by petitioner No. 1 for a domestic electricity connection. AW2, Ram Krishan, Clerk, Electricity Board had stated that the demised premises are residential in nature. Petitioner No. 1 appeared in the witness-box as RW1 and admitted that she had been selling Ghee since 1977. Petitioner No. 2 appeared as RW2 and stated that the had started the business of selling Ghee after completing his education. RW4, Karnail Singh stated that he had been supplying milk in the Chaubara for the last 8/10 years. RW5 - Ramesh Kumar had stated that he had been seeing the business of milk being conducted in the premises for the last 10/12 years. After taking into account all the documentary evidence and oral evidence, the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the demised premises are being used for non- residential purposes. The Rent Controller had come to the conclusion that the premises were non-residential as the same did not contain a kitchen or a bath-room. The Appellate Authority has held that this finding is baseless. The Rent Controller had relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Roshan Lal v. Dharampal, 1985 PLR 130 : 1984(2) RCR(Rent) 42 (P&H). In my view, the Appellate Authority rightly distinguished the aforesaid authority. It would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, the premises was very old. In those days, the houses of poor people did not contain facilities such as separate kitchen and bath-room. In Roshan Lals case (supra), this Court was dealing with the room situated in the Baazar. It would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, the premises was very old. In those days, the houses of poor people did not contain facilities such as separate kitchen and bath-room. In Roshan Lals case (supra), this Court was dealing with the room situated in the Baazar. In the present case, the demised premises are Chaubara on the first floor of a shop. The Appellate Authority has also observed that there is no licence obtained by the petitioners for running the business of selling milk or Ghee. 4. I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be improper. The findings have been recorded after due appreciation of evidence. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Haryana Act No. 11 of 1973 would be slow to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the court below unless the same are shown to be arbitrary, perverse or based on no evidence. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.