Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2004) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10353 = 2004 L.A.R. 455
Decided on 07.07.2004
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Giani, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate.
A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 (2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting – To whom the subletting of the demised premises has been alleged is an adopted son of the tenant -- No question of subletting arises.
(Para 3)
B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 (2)(ii)(b) – Change of user – Verandah which was stated to be used for purpose of business is still in the shape of verandah – Dealing in scarps in verandah at a small scale for earning livelihood cannot be held that residential building is converted into non-residential building because the dominant purpose was still the same i.e. residential – Eviction petition dismissed.
(Para 4)
ORDER
N.K. Sud, J. (Oral) – This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, dated 11.4.1984 whereby appeal of the petitioner-landlord against the order of the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, dated 25.3.1983 has been dismissed.
2. The landlord had sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds of sub-letting and change of user. The case of the petitioner was that the premises had been rented out to respondent-Tara Singh who had parted with its possession in favour of Ashok Kumar, who was in exclusive and complete possession thereof.
3. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence let by the parties, both the authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that Ashok Kumar was adopted son of Tara Singh and he was helping him in the business. Thus, there was no question of sub-letting.
4. Similarly, in respect of the second ground, the case set up by the landlord was that the residential premises had been converted into a non-residential building and, therefore, it was a case of change of user. This plea was also negatived by both the authorities below on the basis of evidence led before them. It was found that no change had been brought about in the property. The Verandah which was stated to have been used for the purpose of business was still in the shape of a Verandah. It was held that if Tara Singh dealt with scrap in the Verandah at a small scale for earning his livelihood, he cannot be held guilty of converting residential building into a non-residential building because the dominant purpose was still the same i.e. residential.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any factual or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. Accordingly, I find no ground to interfere.
6. The Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
*******