JUDGMENT
Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. The present eviction petition pertains to property bearing Nos. B-XIV-63/42/2.
2. The demised premises was owned by Shri Bishan Sarup, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. After the death of Bishan Sarup, petitioners became owner of the demised premises.
3. The demised premises was rented out vide rent note dated May 22, 1982, exhibit A-8; to the respondents, for a sum of Rs. 500/- per month.
4. Agreement deed, Exhibit A8, was executed between the parties, wherein it was stipulated, that the respondents would not install any printing press or paper cutting machine in the demised premises, as petitioner No. 1 and her late husband, Shri Bishan Sarup, were old persons and did not want any disturbance.
5. It has been further averred that despite agreement deed, respondents installed a printing press and a paper cutting machine, in violation of agreement deed, Exhibit A8, which caused great disturbance to the petitioners.
6. It has been further averred in the petition, that the petitioners needed the demised premises for their own purposes, as their family was large and the petitioners had only one floor on the ground floor and Anr. room on the first floor. Rest of the portion of the demised premises was unfit for human habitation.
7. The Rent Controller, after adducing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondents had changed the usage of the demised premises, without the permission of the landlord and installed a printing press and a paper cutting machine in violation of the agreement, Exhibit A8. He directed that the petitioners were at liberty to have the respondents removed from the demised premises.
8. The present respondents filed an appeal in the Court of the Appellate Authority, Hisar. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of the present respondents and vide its order dated February 26, 3998 set aside the judgment of the Rent Controller.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that vide agreement deed May 22, 1982, Exhibit A8, the respondents had bound themselves not to install a printing machine, nor a paper cutting machine, nor a press in the room, which was rented out to them. A Local Commissioner was appointed, who went to the demised premises. She, in her report, has stated that, a printing press, and a paper cutting machine, is installed in the premises in dispute. She has further stated, that respondents have changed the nature of the usage of the demised premises.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated, that the respondents had taken the room for commercial purposes and thus, they were at liberty to install a printing press and a paper cutting machine He has stated that these two machines are of a very small nature and are used for the purposes of cutting papers to be given to the customers. Respondents are in business of selling stationery and thus, these machines are needed.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner sand the learned counsel for the respondents and nerused the record.
12. Rent note dated May (SIC) 82, which is Exhibit A8, states that, one room measuring 18′ x 18′ is given on rent by the petitioners to the respondents. It has been further
stipulated that the respondents will not install printing machine in the room, nor will
they install binding or paper cutting machine, nor would they install a press.
13. Mrs. Vandana Verma, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner. She visited the spot on July 27, 1994 at 6.00 P.M. She has stated in her report and in her testimony that notice to respondents was given in writing. They were present at the spot, but they refused to sign on the notice. She has further stated that Sarvshri Ishwar, Smt. Manju, Ajay Kumar and Pawan Kumar, employees of the respondents, were also present, but they also refused to sign on the attendance sheet. She inspected the premises and found that a printing machine was installed on one side of the room; on the other side, there was a paper cutting machine. Both these machines were installed in the front portion of the demised premises and in the back portion of the room, there were three racks, papers were lying there and one rack was installed in the middle of the room. She has submitted a site plan, which is Exhibit A12. Report of the Local Commissioner is Exhibit A2.
14. It is clear from the testimony of the Local Commissioner that printing press and the paper cutting machine are installed. This belies the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents were selling stationery. At the time of visiting of the demised premises, there were six persons, whose names are given in the Local Commissioner’s report.
15. In a small place, which is 13′ x 18′, the only inference, which one can draw, is that, the employees of the respondents were there to run the machines and not for the purpose of selling stationery. In the report, there is nothing to show that apart from the papers, there was any other stationary items lying, like pens, pencils etc.
16. In view of my findings recorded above, it is clear, that though the demised premises were let out for the purpose of godown, but the respondents, without the permission of the petitioners, installed a printing press and paper cutting machine. They changed the usage of the demises premises, without the permission of the petitioners.
17. In view of the discussion, as above, respondents are ordered to be evicted from the demised premises.
Revision petition is allowed.