Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 863 (PNJ)

Santosh Kapor v. Ram Sarup

2003-07-02

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities below dismissing the ejectment petition filed by them against the respondent. 2. The respondent wss inducted as a tenant in the demised shop with a Chaubara vide rent note dated 3 7.1976 Exhibit AW1/A. The petitioners have sought ejectment on the ground that the respondent who was let out the shop for Karyana business had also installed a grinding machine without their consent and, thus, the respondent has changed the user of the demised premises. The respondent-tenant denied the allegation of change of user of the demised premises and asserted that the premises were taken on rent for the purpose of business and are being used for the purpose of business alone. 3. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the premises in dispute were let out for Karobar and, therefote, installation of grinding machine for the purpose of Karyana business does not amount to change of user. 4. In the present revision petition, Sh. R.K. Battas, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that it is admitted by the respondent-tenant while appearing as RW1 that the grinding machine is that of 10 HP and, therefore, the finding recorded by the authorities below that the tenant is using the grinding machine for grinding of Masala is not tenable. It is submitted that electricity connection for 10 HP grinding machine is, in fact, an industrial connection and it is manufacturing activity which is not permissible and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted. He has relied upon the judgments reported as Shri Kishan Chand and Anr. v. Shri Gurjinder Singh Arora, Advocate, (1991-1)99 Punjab Law Reporter 196; and Ram Parkash v. Nathu Ram, 1984(1) R.C.R. 214 to the effect that carrying of a business activity in the premises which has been let out to do Karyana business would amount to change of user. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has pointed out that the tenant is only using a small grinding machine for the purposes of grinding of Masala which is ancillary to the carrying of business of Karyana and, thus, the Courts below have rightly found that there is no change of user. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has pointed out that the tenant is only using a small grinding machine for the purposes of grinding of Masala which is ancillary to the carrying of business of Karyana and, thus, the Courts below have rightly found that there is no change of user. It is further pointed out that in the ejectment petition itself the landlord had pleaded that the tenant has installed grinding machine. A Local Commissioner was appointed who found that the tenant was using the grinding machine for grinding of Masala. It is submitted that the statement of the respondent-tenant has to be read as a whole wherein he has denied the capacity of the grinding machine as 10 HP. One line out of the context cannot be read to hold that the grinding machine is powered by 10 HP and is being used as Atta Chaki. It was not the case of the landlords themselves nor there is any evidence that the tenant has ever used the grinding machine for the purposes of Atta Chaki. 6. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once the premises have been let out to the tenant without any specific purpose of business, there is no restriction in the kind of the activity which may be carried out by the tenant. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the premises were let out for a specific purpose but were used for a different purpose i.e. manufacturing activity. Herein, the respondent-tenant is using the demised premises for business of Karyana and has installed a grinding machine for grinding of Masala which is an ancillary purpose to the main purpose of letting out this premises. Such finding has been recorded by the authorities below on the basis of the oral testimony of the witnesses as well as report of the Local Commissioner. 7. There is no illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded that the demised premises are being used by the tenant for the purpose of Karyana business wherein he has installed a small grinding machine for grinding of Masala. Such grinding machine is ancillary to the main business of Karyana. 7. There is no illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded that the demised premises are being used by the tenant for the purpose of Karyana business wherein he has installed a small grinding machine for grinding of Masala. Such grinding machine is ancillary to the main business of Karyana. In view thereof, I do not find any ground to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. No merit. Dismissed.