C.R. No. 2207 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2207 of 2006 Date of Decision: 12.08.2010 Capt. Mohinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Rajesh Kumar ... Respondent C.R. No. 2208 of 2006 Capt. Mohinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Rajesh Kumar ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondent 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Landlord has preferred both these revision petitions under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging the judgment passed by Appellate Authority dated 4.1.2006 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the landlord and allowing the appeal filed by the tenant and ultimately dismissing the petition for eviction of the defendant-respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the present case inter alia are that C.R. No. 2207 of 2006 2 landlord-petitioner herein preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant-respondent seeking ejectment of the respondent from the demised shop. Landlord has sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that tenant is in arrears of rent; tenant has done such act which impaired the value and utility of the premises and has made material addition and alteration in the tenanted shop; tenant is using tenanted shop for the purpose other than it was let out; tenant is causing nuisance in the shop; landlord needs the demised shop for his personal use and occupation. 3. Tenant has refuted the claim of the landlord by way of filing written statement. 4. Learned Rent Controller has held that demised shop was let out at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and it was never enhanced. Learned Rent Controller further held that tenant is not in arrears of rent and has paid entire rent to the landlord. Learned Rent Controller do not find favour with the landlord on the question of need. However, learned Rent Controller while discussing issues No. 4 and 5 held that tenant has changed the user of the demised shop which was rented out to the father of the respondent for running the business of shoe making and after death of the father tenant started doing the work of repairing the scooters and for that purpose he has installed a furnace inside the shop. Learned Rent Controller further held that by installing furnace on the demised shop utility of the shop has been diminished. Consequently, learned Rent Controller directed eviction of the tenant. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of learned Rent Controller directing eviction on the ground that tenant has started C.R. No. 2207 of 2006 3 using demised shop for the purpose other than it was let out and utility of the premises has been diminished by installing furnace therein, two appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority one by landlord challenging the part of the observations of the Rent Controller by which bonafide need of the landlord was not accepted and another appeal was filed by the tenant challenging the eviction. Learned Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 4.1.2006 allowed the appeal of the tenant, however, dismissed the appeal of the landlord and ultimately petition for eviction of the tenant was dismissed. 6. Landlord has filed present revision petition challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 7. Learned counsel for the landlord vehemently argued that learned Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the Rent Controller on the point that tenant has started using the demised shop for the purpose other than it was let out. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that initially shop was let out to the father of the tenant for shoe making, however, after death of original tenant present respondent has started using the demised shop for scooter repairing work and has installed furnace therein, hence tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground that tenant has started business other than it was let out for and by installing furnace in the shop utility of the shop has been diminished. 8. I have carefully examined the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The demised shop was admittedly let out to the father of the respondent for the purpose of shoe making business even now C.R. No. 2207 of 2006 4 respondent is using the shop for scooter repair. In the opinion of this Court mere change of nature of business in the shop does not amount to change of user and does not attract the provisions of the Act that tenant is using the shop for the purpose other than it was let out. It is not a case of the landlord that shop is now being used for residential purpose or for any such business which is not permissible under law. Learned Appellate Court has rightly observed in the impugned order that by using the shop for scooter repairing work does not amount to change of user other than it was let out. Learned Appellate Court has further held that diminishing the utility and value of the property is not proved. 10. In my considered view, learned Appellate Court has recorded finding of fact on the basis of material available on the record. On the question of bonafide need of the landlord, both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that landlord does not require demised shop for his bonafide need and for use and occupation. No fault can be found in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court 11. No interference is called, hence, petitions are dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 12.08.2010 JUDGE reena