Judgment:
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. In the present case, eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed against the petitioner-tenant for his ejectment from one room situated at the rear side having entrance from backside adjoining to toilet of SCF No. 204, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. It was stated in the eviction petition that landlord Jasjit Singh had purchased SCO No. 204, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh from the original owners i.e. Charan Kaur wife of Sewa Singh and Hardev Singh son of Sewa Sing vide sale deed dated 24.7.1987. At that time, one room situated in the rear side of the premises which has been detailed and described in the eviction petition was on rent with the petitioner-tenant. It was stated that the rent paid by the tenant was Rs. 900/- per month. It was a monthly tenancy starting from first of each month. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the premises was rented out for business of spray painting but thereafter the tenant changed the use of the premises from spray painting to paint through bhatties (fire ovens) and, therefore, a considerable damage has been caused to the property. Another ground taken in the ejectment petition was that the premises are required for personal use and occupation as the landlord intended to set up his own independent business of sale and purchase of spare parts after his retirement in 1986. It was further stated that the petitioner required the premises in order to help his son who was carrying out the business in the front of the shop. It was further stated that the relations between the landlord and his son Darshan Singh who is running shop in the main portion of the premises in question are strained. Therefore, the petitioner required the back portion which was in use and occupation of the tenant, Essential ingredients that the landlord is not in use and occupation of any other premises and has not vacated any such premises was also pleaded.
2. Notice of the application was issued.
3. Tenant appeared and filed a written statement. He denied that he changed the use of the premises. It was stated that since inception he is in the business of painting of vehicles etc. fire ovens were in existence since 1986 and the same were installed with the consent of the previous landlord. Ground of personal necessity was denied. It was stated that the petitioner was doing the business of denting and painting of vehicle independently.
4. Thereafter, replication was filed in which the averments made in the reply were controverted and that of ejectment petition were reiterated.
5. Thereafter, the following issues were formulated by learned Rent Controller.
1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the grounds of change of user and personal necessity and non-payment of rent? OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPD
3. Relief.
6. Landlord himself appeared as PW-4. He examined Balbir Kumar as PW-1 Kuldip Singh as PW-2 and Vijay Kumar as PW-3.
7. Respondent examined Om Parkash as RW-1, Mukteeshwar Joshi as RW-2 and he himself appeared as RW-3.
8. Learned Rent Controller held that no permission was taken from the original landlord for installation of fire ovens/bhatties in writing. For this learned Rent Controller relied upon the admission made in cross-examination by tenant himself appearing as RW-3. Explanation given by the tenant that he had taken oral consent was not believed. Learned Rent Controller further held that business of spray painting is quite different from bhatti paint for which fire ovens are required. Learned Rent Controller further held that it has come in testimony of PW-2 Kuldip Singh, Clerk of the Estate Office that shop in question is meant for Printing Press business. PW-3 Vijay Kumar stated that by installation of Bhatties, a considerable damage has been caused to the property.
9. Learned Rent Controller concluded that by installation of fire ovens/bhatties a considerable damage has been caused to the said premises and there was change of user of demised premises. It also held that tenant has failed to prove the written consent. Learned Rent Controller also held that the ground of personal necessity is made out. It held that after retirement, petitioner intends to start his own independent business of selling spare parts.
10. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed by the tenant. Learned Appellate Authority upheld the findings of learned Rent Controller. It further held that business of painting through bhatti is not supplementary to the painting through spray and therefore, it was likely to cause damage to a single room which is the demised premises. It further upheld the plea of the landlord that he wants to set up independent business of sale and purchase of spare parts.
11. I have heard Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner.
12. Mr. Sharma submits that it has been stated in the eviction petition that the landlord had retired in the year 1986. The present petition was filed in the year 1988, therefore, the landlord is now around 80 years of age. Therefore, he states that ground of personal necessity that landlord wants to start his own business of sale and purchase of spare parts no longer exist. He further stated that subsequent events that landlord is aged may also be taken into consideration by this Court. '
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner.
14. It has been stated in the reply to the eviction petition that landlord is carrying on the business of denting and painting of vehicle, therefore, this business requires strenuous manual labour. The landlord can shift his business to sale and purchase of spare parts where on sitting at a counter sale of goods can be effected. Therefore, business of selling spare parts is very convenient in the old age. It has been stated by the landlord that his relations with his son are strained. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that he has to do something to earn his livelihood. Therefore, ground of personal necessity for which a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the two Courts below is upheld.
15. It has been further submitted that from spray paint to paint by installation of fire ovens i.e. bhatties, no change of user can be construed as the business is same. The two courts held that there was no written consent obtained from the previous landlord for installation of fire ovens. Tenant himself admitted that the premises were rented out to him for doing the business of spray painting. Therefore, the findings of two courts below that by installation of fire ovens a damage has been caused to the property can be taken into consideration.
16. Since, I have upheld the ground of personal necessity, therefore, there is no need to go into the question whether the act of tenant to install Bhatties (fire ovens) shall amount to change of user or not.
17. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.