Civil Revison No.6286 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.6286 of 2007 Date of decision:01.02.2010. Munshi Ram and others ...Petitioners Versus Pawan Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vikas Sagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Revision Petition No.37 dated 10.02.1994 had been filed by Smt. Darshna Devi Jain wife of Raj Kumar Jain. It was during the pendency of that litigation that the aforesaid premises were purchased by the petitioners herein and they were substituted in place of Smt. Darshna Devi Jain, vide order dated 19.02.1997. They had applied for ejectment of the tenant (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent herein') on a plea that there was change of user inasmuch as the premises had been let out for residential purpose only; while the respondent herein had started using the premises for commercial purpose. The terms and conditions of the tenancy were documented, vide rent note dated 06.02.1990. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed the respondent herein to vacate the premises within the indicated period. The Appellate Authority, however, reversed the finding and ordered dismissal of the petition by observing that the contents of the rent note Ex.A1 notwithstanding, there was enough cue on the file to prove that the Civil Revison No.6286 of 2007 -2- tenanted premises had been let out for commercial use. It noticed a number of facts to draw an inference that the matter is within the ambit of the proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein, argued that the entire approach of the learned Appellate Authority is violative of the spirit of the proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that no oral evidence in the context is admissible if the terms and conditions of a transaction have been documented. He has further argued that the facts noticed by the learned Appellate Authority to wriggle out of the provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act were not appropriate enough to warrant the finding. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent herein, opted to place implicit reliance upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Appellate Authority. It is in evidence that two portions of the same building were rented out by the petitioners herein to the respondent herein on the same date and two rent notes came to be brought into being. The premises, other than the premises in dispute, were concededly rented out for residential purposes. The entire building is owned by the petitioners herein. Initially, the tenant admitted in the course of his cross- examination that the electric meter installed in the tenanted premises is of commercial character from the very beginning. He did retract his statement in the sentence to follow to take up a stance that there was a domestic meter installed in the tenanted premises upto the year 1990 and that it was changed to commercial in the year 1990. It may be noticed here that the tenanted premises were concededly rented out vide rent note dated 06.02.1990. There is plethora of evidence on the file to prove Civil Revison No.6286 of 2007 -3- that there is no washroom or kitchen attached to the tenanted premises. By the very nature of things, the existence of a residential premises is plainly inconceivable in the absence of facility for kitchen and toilet. In that view of things, the learned Appellate Authority very correctly came to the conclusion that the premises had been let out for commercial purpose. The above facts are adequate enough to wriggle out of the contents of the rent documentation and the relevant provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. The order dated 31.07.2007 granted by the learned Appellate Authority shall stand affirmed. The petition filed by the petitioners herein shall stand dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. February 01, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE