CHILTAI Vs. SHAKUNTALA PANHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the ptitioner in this revision petition under A.P. Buildings(Lease,Rent & Eviction) Control Ac t 60. The Petitioner's husband let out the property viz., a motor garage to the respondent who was allowed to run a laundry. The petitioner's husband who was in military service was transferred to Kashmir and sub scquently he died and his widow the present ptitioner before the Rent Control Court filed an application for eviction on the ground that the said garage is required for her occupation as she is parking her car in open air. It is not in dispute that this portion of the building is a garage. No doubt it constitutes a separate building within the meaning of the Act as 'building' was defined under sec. 2 (iii) as a portion of the building separately let out including garages and out houses. The courts below concurrently found that the requirement is bona fide and the landlord is having the same old car through-out and accordingly eviction was ordered.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Surya Gupta contends that under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (ii) a building used for purpose of keeping a vehicle if let out for other non-residential purpose ceases to be a garage and the said provision has no application. According to him the only course open to the landlord is to resort to sec. 10 (3) (c) seeking for additional accomodation be it residential or non-residential. He amplifies his submission further that once the garage is non-residential and if it is let out for other than the purpose of keeping the vehicle, the landholder can seek eviction if he establishes the requirement of additional accommodation either for residential or non-residential purpose.- The main controversy centres round the point that when admittedly a garage is separately let out, whether it shall cease to be a garage if it, is let out for purposes other than keeping the vahicla. According to the counsel for respondent when a portion of the building is used for purpose of keeping the vehicle its character is not lost and the landlord can squarely maintain the application under section 10 (3) (a) (ii).

(3.) This is not a case where a portion of the building which is not a garage was let out for non-residential purpose and subsequently the landlord requires that portion for keeping his vehicle. In such event section 10 (3) (a) (c) must be invoked. But when under original construction of the building a particular portion of building is exclusively designed for the purpose of keeping the vehicle, its character and its nature of non-residential use of keepting the vehicle is not lost, when the land lord wants such unit for the very purpose for which it is designed sec. 10 (3) (a) (ii) comes into play.