JANAK KUNDRA Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF WORKERS EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord -Petitioner has filed this petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 27th October, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the Respondent was set aside and the landlord's application was dismissed.

(2.) THE landlord -Petitioner is the owner of House No. 1635, Sector 18 -D, Chandigarh, a residential house, and had let out the same to the tenant -Respondent, i.e. Central Board of Workers' Education, by means of a lease -deed, dated 1st January, 1969, which was further renewed for a period of three years with effect from 1st January, 1972. Later on, the lease was terminated by the landlord by means of a notice expiring on 22nd October, 1973, that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. Then she filed an application under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, on the ground that she bona -fide requires the premises for her own use and occupation and she is not occupying any other building in her own right and that she has not vacated any such building after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in this urban area. The application was contested by the tenant -Respondent on the ground that the premises in dispute is not a residential house as the same is being used for a non -residential purpose, and thus, the same cannot be got vacated by the landlady for her own use and occupation. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Board -Respondent submitted that the building is being used from the very beginning as an office, and, therefore, it will fall within the definition of 'non -residential building'. According to the learned Counsel, any purpose which is not residential , will be deemed to be a purpose for business or trade, as contemplated in the definition of non -residential building in the Act. In support of his contention, he referred to Jagan Nath v. The Sangrur Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. Tappa, 1980 (1) R.C.R. 600, Rattan Lal v. Mst. Laxmi Devi, 1971 P.L.R. 86, Ram Micas v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi and Anr., 1973 R.R.C. 425, and Shri Arjan Singh Chopra v. Sewa Singh and Ors., 1967 C.L.J. 408.