JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The landlords are petitioners before this Court. They filed an ejectment petition against the tenant-respondent. The ground of ejectment was the change of user by the tenant without a written consent of the landlords.
2. The case put up by the landlords was that originally, the said tenant had changed the user and started selling tea, eggs and cold drinks. It was further stated that the tenant had stared preparing tea and omelette and selling refreshments to the customers. The tenant contested the petitioner and denied that there was any change of user. In fact he claimed that the shop was not taken out for a specific purpose but he had been selling green vegetables and fruits in the shop. He denied the change of user.
3. The Learned Rent Controller appointed a Local Commissioner also to go to the spot and find out the nature of business carried out by the tenant. On the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner and as well as on the basis of evidence recorded, the learned Rent Controller found that there was no change of user ever committed by the tenant. Even the appeal filed by the landlords failed before the learned Appellate Authority.
4. I have heard Ms. Monika Goel, learned counsel appearing for the landlord-petitioners and with her assistance have also gone through the record of the case. Ms. Monika Goel has vehemently argued that in fact the findings recorded by the learned authorities below were entirely contrary to the record, inasmuch as the Local Commissioner has also found it as a fact that there were some empty tokras in the shop but there was no vegetables as such and further that the empty crates of soda water bottles were also lying. There was one stove also on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid report submitted by the Local Commissioner, the learned counsel maintains that the said report in fact proved the case of the landlords to the effect that now the tenant was not selling the vegetables but was, carrying the business of selling tea, cold drinks and refreshments to his customers.
5. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find myself unable to agree with the same.
6. Nothing has been brought on record that the tenant has stopped selling vegetables at the shop in question. May be there was some material found by the Local Commissioner also, which shows that the tenant was additionally carrying on the other business of selling refreshments. However, that by itself, does not mean change of user by the tenant. The original purpose has not been abandoned.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition, which
dismissed with no order as to costs.