GULRAJ SINGH GREWAL Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Gulraj Singh Grewal, took the suit premises situate in Ludhiana on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- from respondent No. 1, Dr. Harbans Singh, in March, 1980. Respondent No. 2; Dr. Ravinder Singh, is son of respondent No. 1, Dr. Harbans Singh. Both the respondents are medical practitioners. The respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant on three grounds, namely, personal need of the respondents under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a); change of user under Section 13(2)(ii)(b); and impairment of value and utility of the rented building under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The appellant contested the petition denying the existence of any of these grounds for eviction.

(2.) The Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that none of the three grounds had been proved. On appeal by the respondents, the appellate authority held that the personal need of respondent No. 2, Dr. Ravinder Singh, one of the landlords, was proved and the ground of change of user of the rented building by the appellant had also been proved. The third ground relating to impairment of value and utility of the rented building was rejected. The appellate authority further held that the building though let out for residential purpose was used by the appellant, a consultant engineer, partly for his profession on account of which it had become a 'scheduled building' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act and, therefore, the ground for eviction based on personal need was not available for evicting the tenant from a 'scheduled building'. However, an order of eviction was made on the ground of change of user of the rented building. The appellant then preferred a revision to the High Court which has been dismissed affirming the findings and order of eviction made by the appellate authority. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The submissions of Shri Avadh Behari, learned counsel for the appellant are several. The first contention is that there was no change of user by the appellant-tenant to justify the order of eviction on that ground. The second submission is that the finding on the question of personal need of the landlord is erroneous. The last submission is that no order of eviction can be made on the ground of personal need contained in Section 13(2)(a)(i)(a) in respect of a 'scheduled building' since that ground is available for eviction only from a 'residential building' as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act, a 'scheduled building' defined in Section 2(h) of the Act being a different kind of building. In reply, Shri M. B. Gujral, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of eviction is justified and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal. His submission is that a 'scheduled building' defined in Section 2(h) continues to be a 'residential building' as defined in Section 2(g), so that the ground for eviction based on personal need contained in Section 13(2)(a)(i)(a) is available in the present case. He also submitted that the finding of fact relating to personal need of the landlord is not open to challenge. His submission in the alternative is that in case a 'scheduled building' is not a 'residential building', then the ground of change of user is available since the building was let out for residential purpose and its user has been changed unilaterally by the tenant without the consent of the landlord.