TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the same for that purpose. The appellant-landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller in February, 1983 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on several grounds including the ground contained in section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 i.e. the use of the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The Rent Controller made an order of eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of change of user contained in section 13(2)(ii) (b). The tenant's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority which affirmed the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller. A further revision to the High Court has been allowed by the learned single Judge and the order of eviction h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority, was wholly unjustified. There is no merit in Shri Mahajan's argument of waiver or acquiescence by the landlord. Before the Rent Controller the tenant had pleaded estoppel against the landlord, which after due consideration was rightly rejected by the Rent Controller. That finding of the Rent Controller was not assailed by the tenant either before the appellate authority or in the High Court. On merits also, this plea is untenable since no such conduct of the landlord is shown. The argument is, therefore, rejected. We also do not find any substance in the contention that interference under Article 136 is not warranted, in case it is found that the High Court set aside the order of eviction on a misconstruction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n t of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this sec- tion. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord - (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof; or (b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or the Controller may make an order directing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is used for a scheduled purpose, becomes and is called a 'scheduled building' when user of the building is significant or the criterion. Thus, where user of a building is of significance, a distinction is made in the Act between residential building which is not a scheduled building and that which is a scheduled building. This is so in section 4 of the Act dealing with determination of fair rent wherein fixation of rent is made on the basis of user and for that purpose a 'scheduled building' is treated differently from a residential building which is not a scheduled building. Same is the position with regard to the ground of eviction contained in section 13(2) (ii) (b) wherein change in user of the building is alone signif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and scheduled, and it becomes a category different from the one for which the same had been let, the clause would be attracted; This is how this provision appears to have been understood at least eversince than and the people in the State have arranged their affairs on that basis. Apart from the fact that this view commends to us as the correct view, the desirability of continuing the settled view is also a reason in its favour. Shri Mahajan referred to the decision of this Court in Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal and Ors., 1978(2) RCR 601. That case is distinguishable. In that decision the purpose of the lease was not spelt out precisely while letting out a small premises to a cobbler for his business where he sometimes stayed overnight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
