IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.6732 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 14, 2008 Phool Chand .....Petitioner VERSUS Kailash Chand ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, for the petitoner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-tenant has impugned the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court in directing his ejectment from the rented premises. The petitioner-tenant has taken the demised premises on rent at the rate of Rs.720/- per year on the basis of a rent note executed by his father dated 19.12.1969, which was later enhanced to Rs.1800/- per year in the year 1982. As per the case set up by the landlord, the lease had expired but respondent (tenant) continued to be in possession of the demised premises as a statutory tenant. He, however, has also not paid rent since 1.4.1999, which is payable alongwith the house tax, despite several demands and requests. It is further alleged that he had closed the demised premises for about 20 years and is not residing there. Even the water and electricity connections had been C.R. NO.6732 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: disconnected. It is alleged that the building had also become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was further urged that the tenanted premises were needed by the landlord for personal use of his married son. The tenanted premises were altered to convert into a godown whereas the same was let out for residential purposes. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the petitioner is liable to be ejected from the demised premises. Having considered the rival contentions and the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller returned finding on Issue No.1 in favour of the landlord and also found Issue Nos.2 to 4 against the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner impugned the same by filing an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the appellate Court. It is seen that the ejectment of the tenant was sought from the demised premises on the following grounds:- i. ceased to occupy. ii. change of user. iii.impairing value and utility and iv.personal necessity. All the issues arising out of the grounds so raised were discussed together being inter-connected. Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, appearing for the petitioner, would first contend that the change of user, as pleaded, and allegation of ceasing to occupy, which is 20 years ago, would run counter to each other. He further submitted by accepting the rent, the respondent- C.R. NO.6732 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: landlord gave consent to the said change of user and hence, could not seek ejectment of the petitioner on this ground. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on Mohan Lal & anr. Vs. Lachman Dass (dead) through Lrs., 1991 HRR 512. No doubt, in this case it is observed that conduct of the landlord in receiving rent month after month after change of user must be taken to show his consent to the change but these observations came to be made in the facts and circumstances of that case. Here, the ejectment was sought only on the ground of change of user whereas in the present case, number of other grounds, as already noticed, have also been pressed into service. Learned counsel has also referred to D.C.Oswal Vs. V.K.Subbiah and others, 1992 HRR 34 in support of his submission. This was a case where the landlord did not raise any objection to the change of user for 7 years and added this as a second ground of ejectment. In this context, it was observed that landlord having accepted the change of user, it would not be a ground to order ejectment. The ratio laid down in both the cases, in my view, would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel then attempted to show that the ground of change of user would be contrary to ground of ceasing to occupy as already noticed. It is found as a matter of fact that the demised premises was let out for residential purposes. It is also found that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the same for the residential purposes and had converted it into a godown. It was also found that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human C.R. NO.6732 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: habitation. A finding of fact has further been returned that two of the rooms were found full of empty jute, borries and grain borries and some other rooms were containing broken furniture and having some empty tins, cartoons etc. Even a pipal tree has damaged the wall resulting into cracks, which clearly gave an impression that the same has not been used for quite sometime. In fact, no signs of habitation were noticed and even there is no water and electricity connections fitted in the building. W.C. In the urinals and kitchen were also found non-functional, which is clear indication that the same has not been occupied. The finding of facts as recorded by the courts below would not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The counsel otherwise has not been able to make any substantial submission, which may require any consideration. Accordingly, the judgments of both the courts below would not call for any interference and the present revision petition is dismissed in limine. January 14 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE