RAJINDER SINGH Vs. JATINDER DEV NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is a landlord. He owns a premises in the town of Gurdaspur. The said premises was let out to the respondent-tenant in the year 1971 for residential purposes under an agreement. In the year 1991, the appellant retired from service. Under such circumstances, the appellant filed an application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for eviction of respondent-tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that he is a specified landlord and he requires the premises for his own need. The Rent Controller after having found that the appellant is a specified landlord and further that the premises was let out for residential purposes, allowed the application filed by the appellant.

(2.) Aggrieved, the tenant filed a Revision Petition under sub-section (8) of Section 18-A of the Act before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional power, allowed the Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the Rent Controller. It is against this order the appellant is in appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the High Court while exercising its revisional power has transgressed the power conferred on it by virtue of sub-section (8) of Section 18-A of the Act by interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller. The argument has merit. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent is that there was no evidence on record to show that the premises at any time was ever used residential purposes and as such the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the premises was let out for residential purposes suffered from legal infirmity and, under such circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller. The parties before the Rent Controller led their evidence. The appellant examined himself and in his Examination-in-Chief stated that the building was being used for the residential purposes prior to letting out to the tenant. The respondent's witness Avtar Singh also admitted that the premises was being used for the residential purposes prior to letting. In view of these evidence on record the High Court was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller on the ground that the said finding of fact was based on no evidence. The High Court further held that, since the premises was being used for running a school and the rent receipts that were being issued showed that the premises was let out for non-residential purpose, is also legally incorrect. Section 11 of the Act prohibits an owner and occupier of the premises to convert a residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing by the Controller. Therefore, a residential premises could not be used for non-residential purpose, namely, for running a school. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court suffers from serious infirmity and deserves to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.