76 t 0 CivilRevision No 5091of 2008 e1e 4rst k lt IN THE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No095 of 2008 Dateofdecisionl 18 1 010 LadiesIndustrial Home Sewa Samiti Regd l Petitioner 0 C3 Versus I Puneet Aneja espondent 0 I kkt Z CORAM 1 HONBLE MRJUSTICE S ANAND h Present Mr VijayK SinglaAdvocate for the petitioner Mr 0Hoshiarpuri Advocate for the respondent a5 SANANDJ V7 The petitionersociety IS Iandlordof the tenanted premises Z which it had rented out to the It appliedfor the ejectmentof the on a plea of nonpayment of rent changeof user and also the removal of wall intervening the two shops which removal of wall intervening two shopslhad materiailyaHected the value and utilityof the tenanted premisesThe plea found favour with the IearnedRent Controller The respondentetenant was directed to vacate the premiseswithin three months from the date of ordergrantedbythe iearned Rent Controller In appeal however the findingwas reversed and the Iearned AppellateAuthorityordered the dismissal of the ejectmentpetitior The petltionersocietyis in revisionagainstit Insofar as the groundpertainingto non paymentof rent is JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 Civil Revision No09of 2008 e2 e lklklt concerned the same is no Iongerin controversyThe entire rent was paid up and this fact stands noticed in para 18 ofthe order grantedby the IearnedRent Controller insofar as the pleaqua changeof user is concerned the IearnedRent Controller did not accept it The Iearned AppeIIateAuthority 1 r the finding This Court has has no reservationsin upholdingthe 0 findingbythe two Courts that changeof user had not been provedat the C0 I trial This inferentialobservationis based upon the contents of rent note C5 Ex It stands noticed in para 19 of the judgmentof the I Rent Controller that the tenanted premiseshad been Iet out to the Z for the purpose of runningthe business of plywood watches and pipes etc In that view of thingsit cannot be said that the tenantedpremiseshad been Iet out only for purpose of runningplywood I a5 businessand not for runningthe business of watches etc which the is presentlyundertaking in the tenantedpremises em Z Insofaras the other Ieft out pleafor ejectmentis concerned thefindingrecorded by the IearnedAppellateAuthoritydeserves to be 1 validated The reasons thereforare as underl Itwas the precisepleaof the petitionersocietythat there was a wall interveningtwo shopswhich had been rentedout to the respondent The intervening wall was removed by the and it is the removalof the interveningwall which had impairedthe value and utilityof thetenantedpremises In that very context the averment raised was that the tenancywas in respectof two adjacentshops and removal of the wall had gone againstthe very concept of rentingout of two shopswhich act on the part of the had materially affectedthe value and utilityof the tenanted premises JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 m 1 4 Civil Revision No 50of 2008 m3 V0 r712k There is plethoraof material on the file to prove that there IS only one electricitymeter installed Ill the tenanted premisses In the course of the rent note Ex Pl the singularexforession used penainsto a singleshop and not to two shops If the tenanted premisesconsisted of two shopsit was a pluralexpressionwhich had to be used to describe the r rented premises It may be that two shopsbeingNo 18 and 19 were given 0 Oll rent as a singleunit The fact that entire tenanted premiseshad one C singleelectricitymeter and also the attendingcircumstances of the case 0 go a Iongway to prove that it was a case of singiecompositetenancy In I that very context it may be noticed that the Local Commissioner appointed Z bythe IearnedRent Controller had recorded a categoricalOndingthat 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 a5 of the Local Commissioner In view of the facts noticed above there can be no escape 7 Z from the conclusion that the had not been able to prove tl the two averred groundsof ejectment 1e changeof user and impairment of value and utilityof the tenanted premises The petitionis held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed a January 18 2010 S ANANDI Pka JUDGE l JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document