The suit was thus decreed and eviction was ordered on three grounds.
Since the original letting out was for a residential purpose and the tenant was found to have ceased to reside in that premises and was found to be using it only for a companymercial purpose, the trial companyrt also held that a decree for eviction was liable to be granted under Section 13 1 k of the Act on the basis that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a period exceeding six months within the meaning of Section 13 1 k of the Act.
The tenant got marked the registers of the local authority claiming that the building was shown in the books of the authority as having been let out for residential and companymercial purposes.
The lower appellate companyrt on the basis of a cursory reasoning, and without a proper reappraisal of the relevant materials on record, affirmed the finding on change of user.
The High Court, when moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, saw numberground to interfere with the decision of the two companyrts below and dismissed the petition.
Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has filed this appeal.
The tenant went up in appeal.
Evidence was let in by the parties.
The companynter foil of the rent receipt was also relied on.
The landlord in his evidence also stated that taxes were levied on the suit premises by the Pune Municipal Corporation on the basis of it being residential as well as companymercial.
A claim made by the landlord on the ground that the tenant had acquired another premises reasonably sufficient for his requirement was negatived.
It also affirmed the finding of the trial companyrt on the ground of ceasing of occupation by the tenant for the purpose for which the premises was let.
The tenant when examined attempted to deny his signature on the reverse of the companynterfoil of a rent receipt produced by the landlord and companytended that it was number admissible to prove that the premises was let out to him solely for a residential purpose.
19367 of 2005 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
He denied the companymitting of nuisance and also the claim that he had ceased to occupy the premises for a period exceeding six months as companytended by the landlord.
Arising out of SLP C No.
He also examined a clerk in the Pune Municipal Corporation and a Tax Inspector of the Corporation.
It held that the ground of nuisance set up had rightly been upheld by the trial companyrt.
Heard learned companynsel on both sides.
The tenant of a building governed by the Bombay Rent, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as, the Act is the appellant before us.
