Radha Krishan vs Shashi Bansal

J.M. Tandon, J.—The Petitioner it in occupation of two rooms on the ground floor of 7 1/2 Maria House No. 1810, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, at a tenant at Rs. 100/- per month under the Respondent. On April 4, 1978, the Respondent filed a petition for ejectment against the Petitioner on the grounds (1) non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from February 1, 1978; (2) the Petitioner hat changed the user of the premises inasmuch as he was running the business of refining waste mobil oil therein; (3) he was causing nuisance and inconvenience to the other occupants of the house by putting drums in front at also back of the premises and (4) he (respondent) required the premises for his own personal use.

The arrears of rent and interest was paid on the first date of hearing. The Petitioner denied that be had started the business of refining waste mobil oil in the premises or he was causing nuisance as alleged. He also denied that the Respondent required the premises in dispute for his own personal use and occupation.

The Rent Controller vide order dated January 23, 1986, held that the Petitioner was not guilty of causing the alleged nuisance nor did the Respondent require the premises in dispute for hit own use. The Rent Controller, however, found that the Petitioner had started the business of refining waste mobil oil and he was liable to be ejected on the ground of change of user. The ejectment application of the Respondent was consequently accepted and the Petitioner was directed to be ejected.

The Petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the Petitioner had started the business of refining waste mobil oil. The ground of nuisance was not pressed on behalf of the Respondent. The finding of the Rent Controller that the Respondent did not require the premises for his personal use was confirmed. The appeal of the Petitioner was consequently dismissed. It is under these circumstances that the Petitioner has filed the present revision.

The sole point that survives for decision it wether the Petitioner has made change of user of the premises in dispute by starting refining waste mobil oil or not.

The Respondent purchased house No. 1810, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh in 1970. The Respondent appeared as a witness and stated that the Petitioner has started the business of refining waste mobil oil and he keeps drums in the premises which causes nuisance to the other tenants of the house. He further deposed that acid is added for refining mobil oil with the result that offensive smell is emitted. He has also received notices about the change of user from the Estate Office. In his cross-examination, he stated that the Petitioner was doing the business of refining waste mobil oil for the last two years. (The statement was recorded on October 5, 1978). The house consists of two rooms and the Petitioner with his family resides there. Rattan Chand is an Assistant in the Estate Office. He stated that Achhra Singh and Joginder Singla had made a complaint that waste mobil oil is refined in the premises in dispute. A notice was consequently issued to the Petitioner as also to the owner of the house. No reply to the notice was received. During enquiry he found two or three drums lying in the premises. He did not see the work relating to refining of waste mobil oil being done there. He did not see mobil oil in the drums though they appear to contain it. Nothing happened in the complaint and the same was consigned. Joginder Singla is another witness of the Respondent. He stated that the Petitioner was doing the business of preparing Vim, soap and refining of waste mobil oil. In his cross examination he stated that he did not know if the Petitioner was running the business of preparing the Vim or soap in the industrial area. He had made a complaint about the Petitioner having started refining waste mobil oil in the premises in dispute. He himself is also a tenant of the house of the Respondent. Ghansham Arora is a tenant on the first floor of house No. 1810, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. He stated that the Petitioner and Joginder Singla are occupying the ground floor of the same house. The petitioner is running the business of refining waste mobil oil. In his cross-examination he stated that the waste mobil oil is refined by the Petitioner during the night. He did not know what other business was being done by the Petitioner

Radha Kishan Petitioner himself appeared as a witness and he said that he was manufacturing detergent in the premises No. 378, Industrial Area, Chandigarh He is not doing the business of refining waste mobil oil. Lalita Parsbad, Jaswant Singh and Gobind Singh appeared as his witnesses and supported his case. Jaswant Singh is residing in House No. 1807, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, and Gobind Singh is the owner of premises No. 378, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

It is from this evidence that we have to find out whether the Petitioner is doing the business of refining of waste mobil oil in the premises in dispute or not. According to the Respondent, the petitioner is refining waste mobil oil on a commercial scale. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced to prove the source from which the Petitioner gets waste mobil oil and the parties to whom the refined mobil oil is supplied The Petitioner is in occupation of two rooms. It is not disputed that he alongwith the family which consists of his wife and children reside there is no separate kitchen. It is doubtful if the business of refining waste mobil oil on a commercial scale can be done by the Petitioner therein. The notice Exhibit A-2 was issued by the Estate Office, Chandigarh, on January 10, 1978. The notice Exhibit A-1 was issued on July 27, 1977. Rattan Chand, an Assistant of Estate Office, Chandigarh, who appeared as a witness for the Respondent stated that nothing happened in this complaint and it was consigned. The notices Exhibits A-1 and A-2 are addressed to Harcharan Dass Bansal, House No. 1045, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh, Harcharan Dass Bansal is stated to be the vendor from whom the Respondent purchased the house in 1971. He admittedly did not reside in house No. 1045, Sector 18-D. The Respondent resides in that house. There appears to be some confusion of the name of the owner of the house. Rattan Chand, an Assistant of Estate Office, Chandigarh, who visited the premises did not find any work relating to refining of waste mobil oil being done there. The case of the Respondent is that the Petitioner did that work during the night. If this work was in fact being done on a commercial scale in the premies in dispute then it doubtful if it will be done only at night and further no trace of such business shall be found out during the day. In view of the fact that Rattan Chand Assistant did not find refining of waste mobil oil work being done at that place, it will be reasonable to infer that no such work was being done in the premises in dispute.

9 The Rent Controller has placed implicit reliance on the statement of Joginder Single and Ghansham Arora who are living in the same house as tenants in different portions for recording a finding that the Petitioner has been running the business of refining waste mobil oil in the premises in dispute. In view of what has been discussed above, the approach of the Rent Controller is completely erroneous The Appellate Authority has assumed that the Petitioner admitted that he was doing the work of refining waste mobil oil in an Industrial Plot No. 378, Industrial Area, Chandigarh This assumption is factually incorrect. The Petitioner did not admit that he did the work of refining of waste mobil oil in industrial Plot No. 378. The case of the Petitioner is that he did not do such business at all.

It cannot be inferred from the evidence led by the parties that the Respondent has been able to prove that the Petitioner had started business of refining waste mobil oil in the premises in dispute. The Courts below have gravely erred in recording a finding on this point against the Petitioner and it cannot be sustained

In view of discussion above, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority set aside and the ejectment application of the Respondent dismissed. No order as to costs.