I N THE HI GHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA v. Puneet Anej a

76 0 t CivilRevision No 5091of 2008 e1e 4rst k lt I N THE HI GHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH Civil Revision No095 Dat eofdecisionl of 2008 18 1 010 0 C3 I 0 I Z h a5 V7 Z LadiesI ndust rial Hom e Sewa Sam it i Regd l Versus Puneet Anej a Pet it ioner espondent CORAM 1 HONBLE MRJUSTI CE S ANAND Present Mr Vij ayK Singla Advocat e for t he pet it ioner Mr 0Hoshiarpuri Advocat e for t he respondent SANANDJ The pet it ionersociet y I S I andlord of t he t enant ed prem ises which it had rent ed out t o t he I t appliedfor t he ej ect m entof t he on a plea of nonpaym ent of changeof user and also t he rem oval of wall int erveningt he t wo shops which rem oval of wall int erveningt wo shopslhad m at eriailyaHect ed t he value and ut ilit yof t he t enant ed prem isesThe plea found favour wit h t he I earnedRent Cont roller The respondent et enantwas direct ed t o vacat e t he prem iseswit hin t hree m ont hs from t he dat e of order grant edby t he iearned Rent Cont roller I n appeal however t he findingwas reversed and t he I earned Appellat eAut horit yordered t he dism issal of t he ej ect m entpet it ior The pet lt ionersociet yis in revisionagainstit JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document I nsofar as t he groundpert ainingt o non paym entof 77 Civil Revision No09of e 2008 e2 lklklt concernedt he sam e is no I ongerin cont roversy The ent ire rent was paid up and t his fact st ands not iced in para 18 oft he order grant edby t he I earnedRent Cont roller insofar as t he pleaqua changeof user is concerned t he I earnedRent Cont roller did not accept it The I earned AppeI I at eAut horit y t he finding This Court has has no reservat ionsin upholdingt he findingby t he t wo Court s t hat changeof user had not been provedat t he t rial This inferent ialobservat ion is based upon t he cont ent s of rent not e Ex I t st ands not iced in para 19 of t he j udgm entof t he Rent Cont roller t hat t he t enant ed prem iseshad been I et out t o t he for t he purpose of runningt he business of plywood wat ches and pipes et c I n t hat view of t hings it cannot be said t hat t he t enant edprem iseshad been I et out only for purpose of runningplywood businessand not runningt he business of wat ches et c which t he is present lyundert akingin t he t enant edprem ises I nsofaras t he ot her I eft out plea for ej ect m entis concerned t hefindingrecorded by t he I earned Appellat eAut horit ydeserves t o be 1 r 0 C0 I C5 I Z I a5 Z 1 validat ed The reasons t hereforare as underl I t was t he precisepleaof t he pet it ionersociet yt hat t here was a wall int erveningt wo shopswhich had been rent ed out t o t he respondent The int erveningwall was rem oved by t he and it is t he rem ovalof t he int erveningwall which had im pairedt he value and ut ilit yof t het enant edprem ises I n t hat very cont ext t he averm ent raised was t hat t he t enancywas in respectof t wo adj acentshops and rem oval of t he wall had gone againstt he very concept of rent ingout of t wo shopswhich act t he part of t he affect edt he value and ut ilit yof t he t enant ed prem ises had m at erially JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 m 1 4 Civil Revision No 50of V0 2008 m 3 r712k There is plet horaof m at erial on t he file t o prove t hat t here I S only one elect ricit ym et er inst alled I ll t he t enant ed prem isses I n t he course of t he rent not e Ex Pl t he singularexforessionused penainst o a singleshop and not t o t wo shops I f t he t enant ed prem isesconsist ed of t wo shopsit was a pluralexpressionwhich had t o be used t o describe t he rent ed prem ises I t m ay be t hat t wo shopsbeingNo 18 and 19 were given Oll a singleunit The fact t hat ent ire t enant ed prem iseshad one singleelect ricit ym et er and also t he at t endingcircum st ances of t he case a I ongway t o prove t hat it was a case of singiecom posit et enancy I n t hat very cont ext by t he it m ay be not iced t hat t he Local Com m issioner appoint ed I earnedRent Cont roller had recorded a cat egoricalOndingt hat t here no m arks of rem oval of int erveningwall I f t here every exist ed any int erveningwall and it had been rem oved it m ust have com e t o t he not ice of t he Local Com m issioner I n view of t he fact s not iced above t here can be no escape from t he conclusion t hat t he had not been able t o prove t he t wo averred groundsof ej ect m ent1e changeof user and im pairm ent of value and ut ilit yof t he t enant ed prem ises The pet it ionis held t o be devoid of force and is ordered t o be dism issed January 18 2010 Pka a S ANANDI JUDGE JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document r 0 C 0 I Z a5 7 Z t l l