Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Chand And Another vs Raghbir Singh And Others on 6 January, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR-4675 of 2011 O&M)
Decided on January 06,2012.
Gian Chand and another --Petitioners
Vs.
Raghbir Singh and others -- Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta,Advocate, for the petitioners RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J: (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order of eviction passed by both the learned Courts below, inter-alia, on the ground of change of user.
The learned Appellate Court recorded the following finding in respect of change of user:-
"Now coming to the plea of change of user of the demised shop, it may be noticed that in the written statement, as well as in cross- examiation of respondent No1 Raghbir Singh, it has been admitted that the shop in question was let out for running the business of sale and repair of watches. It is pleaded in para page 5 of the written reply that the repair work of watches has reduced tremendously for the last 2-3 years due to ready availability of cheap watches and therefore the answering respondent has started additional work of tea- stall in the verandah portion of the shop in question. The said admission thus supports the finding in the report Ex. PW2/B of the Local Commissioner that the business of tea-vendor is also being carried out in the premises in question which otherwise too is evident from the photographs Exs.R 3 to R 5 relied upon by the tenant-respondent No.1 wherein tea-stall in the demised premises are apparently visible and respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 are present CR-4675 of 2011 O&M) -2- there, as has been admitted by the petitioner-landlord PW-3 Raghbir during his cross-examination. The above admission in itself in fact establishes the plea of the petitioner-landlords in so far as the change of user of the demised shop is concerned in as much as it is admitted that the shop in question was let out for running business of sale and repair of watches but is now being used for running a tea stall also therein, without the consent of the landlord. Observations of our own Hon'b le High Court in the cases titled Raman Kumar and another Vs. Chet Singh reported in 2006 (1) Haryana Rent Reporter 578, M/s. Gian Chand and another Vs. Krishna Kumari and another, reported in 2005 (2) Haryana Rent Reporter,21 and Surjit Singh Vs. Tejinder Singh and another, reported in 2009 (1) Haryana Law Reporter, 157, may be read to advantage in this context".
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the demised premises was taken on rent for repair of watches but even if the petitioners have installed a tea-stall, then it would not fall within the definition of change of user.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in detail and perused the record.
I am of the view that there is no error committed by the learned Courts below in allowing the eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises which was admittedly let out to them for the purpose of repair in which the petitioners had started the work of tea stall without the permission of the landlord.
In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed though without any order as to costs.
JANUARY 06,2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) RR JUDGE