JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant’s revision petition.
2. Landlady (respondent herein) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (briefly ‘the Act’) for the eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) on the grounds of non-payment of rent; personal necessity; change of user from residential of godown/store-house and impairment of value and utility of the premises.
3. The petition was contested by the tenant, who denied the allegations made in the ejectment petition.
4. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence brought on the record, ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises by demolishing the boundary-wall and widening the gate from 4 ft. to about 7 ft. The Rent Controller also found that the tenant converted the premises from residential to store. On appeal by the tenant, the appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller only with regard to impairment of value and utility of the premises, but set aside the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to change of user. The tenant has now filed the present revision petition impugning the order of the Appellate Authority.
5. After perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that the landlady has successfully established on record that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises by demolishing the boundary-wall in order to widen the gate for the purpose of movement of the trucks. This rinding of the Authorities below is based on the appraisal of evidence and therefore, calls for no interference. Learned counsel for the respondent is right in submitting that finding of the appellate Authority with regard to the ground of change of user by the tenant is liable to be reversed. I am also in agreement with his contention that the respondent not only can support the order under revision, but is also entitled to challenge any finding although the order may be in her favour. In the present case, the landlady in her petition has specifically pleaded that the tenant has started using the premises as store-house for building material and other allied products required for the construction of buildings. In order to prove this fact, she has referred to the statement of Sh. Bhagat Singh, Advocate, R. W. 3, who was appointed as Local Commissioner Shri Bhagat Singh inspected the premises in presence of the tenant. The Local Commissioner on inspection found that the tenant has not only widened gate by breaking the boundary, but is also using the premises as store house. The relevant extract of his report is as under :–
“3. Verandah marked ‘C, room marked ‘D’ ‘E’ ‘F’ were full of wooden slippers which were not properly stocked and so were not in countable position.
4. xxx xxx xxx
5. From my above inspection of the premises in dispute, I have come to the conclusion that the house in dispute is being used as store-house by the respondent for stocking wooden slippers and stone slabs. He has also broken the outer boundary wall and has widen the gate intentionally for assess (sic) access of the vehicles to the building.”
In his inspection report, the Local Commissioner has no where stated that the building was being used for residential purposes. The finding of the Rent Controller was set aside by the Appellate Authority only on the ground that at the time of inspection by the Local Commissioner, certain women were present inside the building. In my view, the mere presence of certain women by itself was no ground to set aside the finding of the Rent Controller particularly when the Local Commissioner in his inspection-note as well as in his statement clearly stated that the premises were being used for the purpose of stocking wooden slippers and stone slabs The report of the Local Commissioner was never objected to by the tenant. Even otherwise, the tenant has failed to bring any cogent and convincing evidence on record so as to prove that the building was being used only for the residential purpose at the time when the petition was filed or at the time when inspection was made by the Local Commissioner. In this view of the matter, I find that the tenant has started using the residential building for the purpose of stocking wooden slippers and stone slabs and is therefore, liable to be ejected on the ground of change of user. Thus, the rinding of the Appellate Authority on this count is set aside.
6. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.