Bir Singh vs Harjinder Kaur and others

J.M. Tandon, J.—This is a revision petition filed by Bir Singh against the order of the learned Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, dated January 7, 1976, whereby his appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated October 7, 1974, accepting the application of Smt. Harjinder Kaur respondent for his ejectment from S.C.F. No. 18, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, on the grounds of subletting and perversion of user, has been dismissed.

S.C.F. No. 18, Sector 8B, Chandigarh, is admittedly owned by Smt. Harjinder Kaur respondent. It was let out to Bir Singh petitioner for carrying on general trade at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. Smt. Harjinder Kaur filed a petition for ejectment against Bir Singh as also Malkiat Singh and Inayat Masih, in whose favour the former had sublet a part of the premises, on various grounds. Bir Singh denied having sublet the premises or having misused them. Inayat Masih, in his separate written statement, stated that he was a tenant of Bir Singh in the Barsati of the premises for about 6� years upto April 6, 1973 and Bir Singh got the said premises vacated from him on April 6, 1973. He further added that he initially paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per annum and later it was enhanced to Rs. 50/- per mensem.

On the pleading of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:--

Whether the tender of arrears of rent made on 24th March, 1973 is invalid. O.P.P.

Whether respondent is liable to ejectment on grounds urged in paras 5(ii) to 5(v) of the petition. O.P.P.

Relief.

Issue No 1 was not pressed whereas issue No. 2 was found in favour of Smt. Harjinder Kaur respondent and consequently the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated October 7, 1974, ordered the ejectment of Bir Singh. Aggrieved against this order, Bir Singh filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on January 7, 1976. Hence the present revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the premises had been taken on rent by the petitioner from Smt. Harjinder Kaur respondent for furniture business and he is running a furniture shop therein. Smt. Harjinder Kaur has failed to prove that she had not allowed Bir Singh petitioner to manufacture or repair furniture in the premises in dispute. May be there was some arrangement between her and the Union Territory Administration that manufacture and repair business shall not be carried on in the premises. Such an undertaking by Smt. Harjinder Kaur or arrangement between her and the Administration is not binding on the petitioner. Smt. Harjinder Kaur respondent has not appeared as a witness. Her husband P.W. 8 Harbhajan Singh admitted that a rent note had been executed but no such rent deed was produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, wants to infer that had the rent deed been produced it would not have supported the case of the landlady. The learned counsel has then argued that the manufacture and repair of furniture is allied business to to one of its sale and irrespective of the manufacture and repair having been done in the premises the fact remains that the dominent use of the premises pertained to the sale of furniture and the petition was therefore, not liable to be ejected on the ground of perversion of user.

The learned counsel for the landlady has argued that the premises had been let out to Bir Singh petitioner for running a general trade and the manufacture as also repair of furniture was specifically prohibited under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, with the result that the misuser of the premises in dispute on the part of Bir Singh has caused the resumption of the property by the Chandigarh Administration. It has further been argued that the rent deed was not produced because it has been lost. A copy of the rent deed was with the petitioner. He also did not produce it. The landlady has adduced evidence on the file on which the learned Rent Controller as also the learned Appellate Authority gave a concurrent finding that misuser on part of the petitioner is proved. The manufacture or repair of furniture is surely not an allied business to one of its sale.

I have carefully considered the points urged before me by the learned counsel for the parties on the issue of misuser. In view of the evidence led on the file, the learned Rent Controller rightly found that the premises in dispute could not be used for the manufacture or repair of furniture and as such the question of the landlady letting them out to the petitioner for this purpose did not arise. The business of manufacture and repair of furniture is not allied to one of its sale. It is proved that the petitioner did start manufacture and repair of furniture in the premises. This act on his part would amount to misuser of the premises making him liable for ejectment. The concurrent finding against the petitioner on this point by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority does not merit interference.

Inayet Mashih, who was impleaded as respondent in the ejectment application, filed a separate written statement dated June, 4 1973, wherein he admitted to have occupied a part of the premises, that is Barsati for 6� years as a tenant under the petitioner upto April 6, 1973, first at Rs. 30/- per mensem and for 1� years at Rs. 50/- per mensem. Inayat Masih was admittedly employed as a furniture polisher in the shop of the petitioner run in the premises in dispute. Bir Singh appeared as a witness on July 29, 1974, and he admitted that Inayat Masih was still working with him as a furniture polisher. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Inayat Masih was a licensee under the petitioner and he may have conspired with the landlady to make damaging admission is his written statement. This contention has no force. It has never been the case of the petitioner at any stage that Inayat Masih ever lived in the premises in dispute as a licensee. This plea cannot therefore, be raised for the first time in these revision proceedings. The fact that Inayat Masih was in the employment of Bir Singh when he submitted his written statement on June 4, 1973, and continued to be so till at least July 29, 1974 when the petitioner appeared as a witness and admitted that he was still in his employment, negatives any suggestion of conspiracy on his part with the landlady. The learned Rent Controller, was, therefore, justified in holding subletting of a part of the premises in dispute by the petitioner in favour of Inayat Masih making him liable for ejectment on this ground as well. This finding of the learned Rent Controller was rightly affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority.

The learned counsel for the landlady has argued that the two issues now agitated by the petitioner were concurrently settled by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority in favour of the landlady and therefore, could not be disturbed in these revision proceedings. In support of his con-contention, he has cited Vinod Kumar Vs. Harbans Singh Azad, . The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disposed of the academic proposition argued by the learned counsel for the landlady but has added that in the instant case, the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority based their findings on no evidence. I am afraid, I do not agree with this contention. In view of the evidence led on the file it cannot be said that the findings of the Court below are based on no evidence. Therefore, the concurrent findings on the two issues discussed above, cannot be disturbed in these revision proceedings.

In the result, the present revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. The petitioner is, however allowed two month''s time to put the landlady in possession of the premises in dispute.