Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The present petition is by the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground that tenant has changed the user of the premises and has also materially impaired the value and utility of the shop.

2. The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in a shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The terms of lease were reduced into memo dated 30.10.199. The petitioner has sought ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent, change of user as well as on the ground that the business of dry-cleaning has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. However, the petitioner has restricted its case for seeking ejectment on the ground of change of user alone in the preset petition. The landlord has stated that the building was let out for the purpose of running of business of milk dairy, whereas the respondent has started the business of dry-cleaning in the tenant premises and thus, used the tenanted premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out. The tenant denied the allegations of the landlord including that of execution of memo of lease and that he is using the premises for dry-cleaning.

3. The landlord has produced A.W.I to prove that Verka Milk was being supplied to the respondent till 11.10.1992. On the other hand Ved Matta tenant has appeared as R.W.2 and admitted that initially he did the business of milk for 2-2-1/2 years and thereafter, he started running tea stall and since January, 1993 he has started dry-cleaning business in the said shop. He has stated that the landlord has not objected to dry-cleaning business by him but the landlord sought increase of rent, to which he did not agree and therefore, the landlord has sought the present petition.

4. The learned Rent Controller although held that the respondent is running dry-cleaning business in the said shop but such running of dry-cleaning business will not change the user relying upon Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 670 (S.C.).

5. However, the Appellate Authority distinguished the judgment of this Court in Daya Singh v. Shrimati Shanta Anand 1980 (2) Rent Law Reporter, 168 wherein ejectment was allowed when the premises which were given on rent for general sore and the tenant started dry-cleaning. However, the appeal was dismissed relying upon Mohan Lal's case (supra) as well as on Dhanpat Rai v. Lajpat Rai and Ors., (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 387, a judgment of this court where the change of business from Halwai to Kary-ana was held not amounting to change of user or where the premises let out for liquor were being used for general merchandise.

8. In view of the said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court if the landlord is able to prove the mischief or detriment or impairment of the shop, then the tenant will not be able to save his eviction on account of change of user.

9. Renting of the premises for the milk dairy was not carrying any risk to the tenanted premises as running of the milk dairy does not involve any use of inflammable material or machinery which are necessary for running of a dry-cleaning business. For any dry-cleaning business not only special machines are to be installed but also highly inflammable products are used for dry-cleaning of the clothes. Such use of inflammable material is likely to cause detriment and impairment of the value and utility of the shop which was not the intention of the landlord when the building was let out for use of the milk dairy. The running of business of a dry-cleaning is neither allied to the main business nor ancillary to the business of milk dairy but is totally different and cannot be compared with the running of the milk diary. In these circumstance, this court has in Daya Singh v. Shrimati Shanta Anand 1980(2) RLR 424 has held that use of a building for running of a dry-cleaning shop amounts to change of user.