Civil Revision No. 5096 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5095 of 2008 Date of decision : 18.1.2010 Ladies Industrial Home Sewa Samiti (Regd.) ....Petitioner Versus Puneet Aneja ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vijay K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner society is landlord of the tenanted premises which it had rented out to the respondent-tenant. It applied for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant on a plea of non-payment of rent, change of user and also the removal of wall intervening the two shops which (removal of wall intervening two shops) had materially affected the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The plea found favour with the learned Rent Controller. The respondent-tenant was directed to vacate the premises within three months from the date of order granted by the learned Rent Controller. In appeal, however, the finding was reversed and the learned Appellate Authority ordered the dismissal of the ejectment petition. The petitioner society is in revision against it. Insofar as the ground pertaining to non payment of rent is Civil Revision No. 5096 of 2008 -2- **** concerned, the same is no longer in controversy. The entire rent was paid up and this fact stands noticed in para 18 of the order granted by the learned Rent Controller. Insofar as the plea qua change of user is concerned, the learned Rent Controller did not accept it. The learned Appellate Authority upheld the finding. This Court has has no reservations in upholding the finding by the two Courts that change of user had not been proved at the trial. This inferential observation is based upon the contents of rent note Ex. P1. It stands categorically noticed in para 19 of the judgment of the Rent Controller that the tenanted premises had been let out to the respondent-tenant for the purpose of running the business of plywood, watches and pipes etc. In that view of things, it cannot be said that the tenanted premises had been let out only for purpose of running plywood business and not for running the business of watches etc. which the respondent-tenant is presently undertaking in the tenanted premises. Insofar as the other left out plea for ejectment is concerned, the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority deserves to be validated. The reasons therefor are as under:- It was the precise plea of the petitioner society that there was a wall intervening two shops which had been rented out to the respondent. The intervening wall was removed by the respondent-tenant and it is the removal of the intervening wall which had impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. In that very context, the averment raised was that the tenancy was in respect of two adjacent shops and removal of the intervening wall had gone against the very concept of renting out of two shops which act on the part of the respondent-tenant had materially affected the value and utility of the tenanted premises. Civil Revision No. 5096 of 2008 -3- **** There is plethora of material on the file to prove that there is only one electricity meter installed in the tenanted premisses. In the course of the rent note Ex. P1, the singular expression used pertains to a single shop and not to two shops. If the tenanted premises consisted of two shops, it was a plural expression which had to be used to describe the rented premises. It may be that two shops being No.18 and 19 were given on rent as a single unit. The fact that entire tenanted premises had one single electricity meter and also the attending circumstances of the case go a long way to prove that it was a case of single composite tenancy. In that very context, it may be noticed that the Local Commissioner appointed by the learned Rent Controller had recorded a categorical finding that there were no marks of removal of intervening wall. If there every existed any intervening wall and it had been removed, it must have come to the notice of the Local Commissioner. In view of the facts noticed above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner-society had not been able to prove the two averred grounds of ejectment i.e. change of user and impairment of value and utility of the tenanted premises. The petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. January 18, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE