Civil Revision No.3140 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3140 of 2009 Date of decision:02.02.2010. Anuraj Jindal and others ...Petitioners Versus Mandir Shri Sita Ram Ji Maharaj ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The respondent – landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent herein') filed a plea for ejectment of the petitioners- tenants (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioners herein') from the tenanted premises on a plea of the latter being in arrears of rent, change of user and for having materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. Insofar as the controversy about the non-payment of rent is concerned, it is no longer available for consideration inasmuch as the rent assessed by the learned Rent Controller had been duly deposited in the Trial Court. Insofar as the plea of change of user is concerned, the averment made by the respondent – landlord was that the premises had been let out for use as residence and godown; whereas the petitioners herein are presently using its godown portion as a shop. In respect of the last Civil Revision No.3140 of 2009 -2- indicated premise to obtain ejectment, the averment was that the petitioners herein had raised construction to include the verandah in front of the tenanted premises and they had thereby done an act which had materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The terms and conditions of the tenancy under adjudication were documented in a rent note, wherein it was concededly indicated that the premises were being let out for use as residence and godown. The presentation made today on behalf of the petitioners herein that the premises had been let out for use as residence and shop is in contradiction to the contents of the rent note Annexure R-1. Apart therefrom, it is in the written statement filed by the petitioners herein that the premises had been let out for use as residence and shop from the very beginning. A copy of the written statement has been placed on record as Annexure R-3. In the course thereof, there is a precise averment that the front portion of the tenanted premises has been used as a shop from the very inception of the tenancy and that “the respondent has been residing along with the family therein and the front portion of the premises in question there is one shop, which has been used as shop by the respondent and the total portion behind it is residential house of the respondent”. The inclusion of the verandah into the tenanted premises, by roofing the portion intervening the premises and the verandah, is beyond the pale of controversy. The only plea raised Civil Revision No.3140 of 2009 -3- on behalf of the petitioners herein is that the roofing aforementioned had been done with the consent of the respondent herein and it is on that account only that there was considerable enhancement in the rate of rent. That plea is totally unsubstantiated. It does not find mention either in the pleadings or in the substantive evidence. If there was even an iota of truth in the relevant averment, there is no reason why the petitioners herein would not have testified on that at the trial and further there is no reason why that averment would not have been put to the witnesses examined by the respondent herein. Insofar as the proven/conceded act aforementioned is concerned, it has been held to be an act which impairs the value and utility of the premises. The Full Bench ruling of this Court reported as Des Raj Vs. Sham Lal, 1980, PLR, 647 is fully supportive of this view of mine. If a premises are let out for use as godown and those premises are used by the tenant as a shop, it obviously amounts to change of user. The law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Des Raj's case (supra) is fully supportive of this observation of mine. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioners herein are given two months' time from today to vacate the tenanted premises. February 02, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE