Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madan Lal And Ors. vs Ram Lal on 17 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR292
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. The petitioners filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) seeking ejectment of the respondent on various grounds, amongst others, that he had changed user of the premises in question. The application was contested by the respondent-tenant by filing a written statement alleging that the premises consisting of a shop had been taken on rent for carrying on business and the respondent-firm continued to carry on the business therein and there had been no change of user. It was specifically denied that no workshop had been set up in the shop in question.
2. The parties led their evidence and on consideration thereof, learned Rent Controller by order dated June 9, 1978 dismissed the ejectment application as in his opinion the landlords had not been able to prove any of the grounds mentioned in the application. The appeal preferred by the petitioner-landlords was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated September 18, 1989. The appellate authority affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 650/- per annum and that there was no change of user of the premises in question.
3. This is a revision petition at the instance of petitioner-landlords. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the finding returned by the Courts below insofar as the rate of rent of the demised premises is concerned. The learned counsel, however, seriously challenged the finding regarding change of user.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel The evidence led on record by the parties does not at all show as to for what purpose the premises in question were let out and for what purposes the premises were later on put to use after the alleged change of user. The authorities below have consistently recorded a finding that no change of user had been proved on record as no satisfactory, cogent and trustworthy evidence had been led in the case. Even here also, nothing has been pointed out on the record from which it can be inferred that the respondent has set up a workshop in the demised premises. Simply applying for a licence for establishing a workshop in the demised premises or obtaining of an electric connection for purpose of testing of electric motors which is a part of the business, for which the demised premises were originally let out, would not amount to change of user of the premises especially in the absence of any cogent, evidence to prove otherwise. Moreover, it has time and again been held in various enunciations that scope for interference with a finding of fact in the revision jurisdiction is very limited It has been very clearly observed by the apex Court in Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. M/s. S. Chokosiri and Co., A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 1845 that where the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional Court must reluctant to embark upon an independent re-assessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the Courts below. In the case in hand as well, as stated earlier, the authorities below reached a contusion that there was no change of user of the demised premises and this finding of fact is fully supported by evidence on record.
5. In the circumstances above, I find no merit in the revision petition which is consequently dismissed. No costs.