JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. This present petition has been filed by the legal representatives of the original tenant, Amar Nath. The challenge has been made against the orders passed by the authorities below whereby ejectment of the tenant has been ordered on the ground of change of user of the demised premises.
2. The ejectment of the tenant Amar Nath was sought by the landlord, Lal Chand on various grounds. It was claimed that the tenant was in arrears of rent; he had changed the user of the premises from residential to non-residential without obtaining the consent of the landlord; and that the tenant had committed such acts which had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in question.
3. In, the ejectment application, the landlord has stated that vide rent note Exhibit A-1 dated 7.5.1971, the demised premises has been let out by the mother of the landlord namely, Smt. Maya Devi at the monthly rate of Rs. 50/-. After the death of Maya Devi, the applicant himself became the landlord and owner of the premises. It was claimed that the respondent No. l failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.9.1988 alongwith house tax and had also committed such acts which had resulted into the impairment of the value of the premises. It was further claimed by the landlord that the premises in question had been let out for residential purposes but the tenant had started using the same for commercial purposes i.e. for running tailoring business.
4. The ejectment petition filed by the landlord was contested by the tenant. All the grounds of ejectment were denied. The arrears of rent were paid on the first date of hearing and accordingly the aforesaid ground did not survive anymore. The tenant, however, claimed that he had been residing in another Mohalla since the year 1968-69 and was doing tailoring business in the premises in question since the very inception of the tenancy. On that basis it was claimed, that there was no change in the user of the premises in question.
5. Learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence on record found that the tenant had in fact changed the user of the premises and from the residential purposes, for which the premises had been let out, he started using the same for commercial purposes i.e. for tailoring business. It was also held that the aforesaid change of user had been undertaken by the tenant without any permission of the landlord. However, the claim of the landlord with regard to impairment of the value and utility of the premises was rejected by the Rent Controller. On the basis of the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, the ejectment petition was allowed and the tenant was ordered to be ejected from the premises.
6. The legal representatives of the tenant (the tenant had expired in the meantime) have filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller were contested. It was maintained that the premises in question was indeed a commercial premises and had been taken by the tenant for running a tailoring shop and therefore, there was no change in the user of premises. However, learned appellate authority on the basis of reappraisal of the entire material available on record still came to similar conclusions as had been arrived at by the learned rent controller. Learned appellate authority also found that as per the rent note ex.-1 the premises in question had been let out only for residential purposes and since admittedly, the tenant was doing tailoring business in the premises in dispute, therefore, there was a change of user and that the tenant had never sought the permission of the landlord for the aforesaid change of user. Accordingly, the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed by the appellate authority as well.
7. The legal representatives of the tenant have still chosen to challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the authorities below by filing the present petition.
8. I have gone through the records of the case and have also perused the orders passed by the authorities below. In my considered view, there is no merit in the present revision petition.
9. It is clear from the perusal of the rent note ex.-1, which stands duly proved from the statements of the attesting witnesses, Wasakhi Ram, AW-1 and Mulkh Raj AW-2 that the premises in question had been let out only for residential purposes. The aforesaid witnesses have also deposed that premises in the dispute had been let out for residential purposes. In these circumstances, the tenant cannot be allowed to claim that the premises had been originally let out for the purposes of tailoring business. Once the purpose of letting out is spelt out from the Rent Note then the tenant cannot claim any other purpose.
10. There is nothing on the record to show that the findings recorded by the authorities below suffer from any infirmity or are unsustainable in any other manner.
11. The present revision is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.