Civil Revision No.2409 of 2003 & 2411 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2409 of 2003 (O&M) & Civil Revision No.2411 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision:21.01.2009 Maru Ram (deceased) through LRs .............. Petitioner Vs. Sandeep Sandhu and others .............Respondents Present: Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? No -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The landlord's application for eviction on the ground of non- payment of rent and the change of user of the building was resisted by the tenant denying completely the alleged change of user. At the trial, the Rent Controller had only to advert to the issue relating to change of user, the payment of rent having been made and there was no scope for adjudication in respect of the said issue. On a factual consideration of evidence placed before the Rent Controller of all witnesses who had given their vehicles for repair and the fact that the Chandigarh Administration itself had taken action for unauthorized user of the premises in the particular zone, the Rent Controller directed eviction. The Appellate Authority reversed the decision, finding that the Commissioner's report was not very clear as regards the nature of user and that the Estate Officer of the Chandigarh Administration had not put appropriate questions to the tenant with regard to his alleged previous statement before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh. He, Civil Revision No.2409 of 2003 & 2411 of 2003 (O&M) -2- therefore, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller. 2. Aggrieved by the reversal of the finding by Appellate Authority, the landlord is in revision before this Court. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the property is situated in Booth No.58 of Sector 31-C, Chandigarh at a place where the administration had demarcated the property for “General Trade”. The landlord has placed on record evidence through Ex.A-2, the proceedings before the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration wherein by the memorandum issued by him, the site in question has been classified for user for the trade specified as “General”. The Capital of Punjab Development and Regulation Act, 1952 makes elaborate provision relating to administration and building regulations within the limits of Chandigarh and sets out in a schedule list of activities that could come within the definition of “General Trade”. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the purpose for which the landlord had rented out the property to the tenant was for General Trade and the tenant could not have used the property to any other purpose not sanctioned even in the original order of allotment to the landlord. The tenant who was carrying on a business in General Trade of articles changed the shop for user for repairing motor-cycles and scooters and for the sale of same. This change according to a landlord constituted a different user which was interdicted under the Chandigarh Urban Development Laws and also afforded to a landlord to obtain eviction of a tenant on the ground 13(2) (b), which states “use of a building or rented for a purpose other than that for which it was leased.” The action of the Chandigarh Administration itself had commenced only on the change of user and the Rent Controller had considered the fact that there had been admission of the tenant of the change of user but further proceedings were dropped only on an undertaking given by his counsel that the change of user of the premises would not be persisted Civil Revision No.2409 of 2003 & 2411 of 2003 (O&M) -3- and the tenant would revert to general trade. The finding of the Rent Controller as regards the express admission on behalf of the tenant was pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as a significant which clearly showed that the tenant had indulged in change of user of the building and the contention that property had not been put to any such change at the Appellate Court was not tenable. The Appellate Authority itself has not referred to this admission but specifically adverted in the order of the Rent Controller. The reversal of the decision made by the Appellate Authority is on a sweeping statement that the landlord had not changed the nature of building and without reference to an admission made on his behalf and the finding that had been rendered by the Rent Controller in that regard. The reversal of finding in my view is perverse and requires intervention in revision. 3. There has been a swarm of decisions rendered through pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts that every change of user is not material and would not enable a landlord to obtain eviction on this ground. The Courts have only taken that such change as it would cause hardship to the landlord as relevant. Here the change of user attracted stringent action under the relevant Chandigarh Urban Development laws as the evidence disclosed by production of A-2, A-3 and A-4 that the Chandigarh Administration was alive to the attempt of change of user made by the tenant. The action of the respondent cannot be pushed under carpet and any indulgence given to such a tenant who exposed the landlord for action at the instance of the Administraton would be grossly unreasonable. 4. The decision of the Appellate Authority, in my view, does not accord with either law or on facts and the revision petition is accordingly allowed with costs assessed at Rs.2,500/-. Civil Revision No.2409 of 2003 & 2411 of 2003 (O&M) -4- 5. C.R. No.2441 of 2003 arises out of findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority where the landlord had complained of subletting of the premises to R.K. Jain and he had been made a party impleaded as Respondent No.3 and his son was impleaded as Respondent No.4. In view of my findings in the above decision that R.K. Jain could not treat himself as merely a power of attorney if the tenants had lost their possession and his possession constituted an act of sub-tenancy, I set aside the decisions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the same line of reasoning as adopted in C.R. No.3672 of 1987 and C.R. No.2409 of 2003. C.R. No.2411 of 2003 is also allowed setting aside the decision of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authoirty in the above terms directing ejectment of the respondents as prayed for, with costs assesed at Rs.2500/-. 6. A photostat copy of this order be placed on the file of C.R. No.2411 of 2003. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 21, 2009 Pankaj*