Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.R.VERMA. versus RAM SARUP.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.R.Verma. v. Ram Sarup. - CR-4941-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2240 (3 April 2006)

- 1 -

C.R.No.4941 of 2004

-.-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

Date of decision: 20.04.2006

-.-

K.R.Verma.

.... Petitioner

Versus

Ram Sarup.

.... Respondent

-.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV
-.-

Present:- Mr. Rajinder Singh Raj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Arun Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller, and the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, on the ground of change of user. The demised premises is a portion, situated at the back side of shop-cum office No. 149, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh.

The facts, in brief, are that the demised premises was rented out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Respondent- land lord filed ejectment petition on the ground of arrears of rent and the change of user. Since the arrears of rent were paid, the said ground did not survive.

However, the ejectment order was passed on the ground of change of user.

- 2 -

C.R.No.4941 of 2004

-.-

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner never changed the user of the demised premises. The tenancy of the petitioner was under the name and style of Verma Motor Garage since its inception. There is not even an averment in the petition nor any evidence has been led as to for what purpose the premises was let out. The only averment made in the petition is that shop-cum-office is meant for general trade and the petitioner has set up motor garage, which does not amount to change of user. Learned counsel further argued that in another ejectment petition filed by respondent- landlord, findings of the Rent Controller are that petitioner was not the sub-tenant. He was running the business of motor garage and in the year 1978 he started the work of denting and painting, but could not run that business, and therefore, started running the motor garage from the very inception. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was in the knowledge of the landlord that petitioner was running the business of motor garage since the very inception and, therefore, he cannot take the plea that there is any change of user.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that as per Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, permitted use of the demised premises was of general trade and this fact has been admitted by the tenant himself. Learned counsel referred to paragraph No.12 of the judgment of Rent Controller wherein it is mentioned that tenant K.R.Verma while appearing as DW 1 categorically admitted the fact that the demised premises is meant for general trade. He also admitted that at the time of filing of the petition, he was running the motor garage and till today he is running the same. He also admitted that he cannot produce - 3 -

C.R.No.4941 of 2004

-.-

any written consent of the landlord to run the motor garage.

A perusal of Schedule (Rule 9) of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, shows that any trade listed in sub-clause `C' of the Schedule would be a special trade and Item No. 11 includes `Motor/Scooter/Tractor/engine/pumps show rooms', and it is not covered under the general trade as mentioned in sub-clause `A' of the Schedule. Any violation with regard to change of user clearly puts the landlord under the peril of resumption of the demised premises. Since the site falls under the item enumerated for the `general trade', whereas running of the motor garage falls under the items enumerated under the head `special trade', petitioner- tenant has used the premises for a purpose for which the demised premises could not be utilised by him. It is pointed out that the order of resumption had already been passed with regard to the demised premises. Even if it is assumed that the demised premises was not let out for a specific purpose, even then petitioner could not use the same for the purpose other than provided under sub-clause `A' of the Schedule framed under Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960. It cannot be argued that landlord had given consent or it was in the knowledge of the landlord to use the premises in violation of the said Rules, as no party can enter into an agreement in violation of the Rules. This was precisely held by a Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Rai Versus Roshan Lal, (1993-1) 103 P.L.R.685, wherein it was observed that mere knowledge of the landlord of the change of user, may be even from the very inception of the tenancy, would not absolve the tenant from liability for ejectment on that ground.

- 4 -

C.R.No.4941 of 2004

-.-

In view of the above, no interference with the impugned orders of Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority affirming the order of Rent Controller is made out. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

( Nirmal Yadav)

JUDGE

April 20, 2006.

Saini


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.