BRIJ LAL Vs. HEM RAJ AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a 'enants(sic) revision Petition directed against the order of the Appellate Authority Luchians. who in turn confirmed that of the Rent Controller, ludhiana, whereby the order of eviction of the tenant Petitioner was maintained.

(2.) THE case of the Respondents -landlords was that they rented out House No B IV 54 , fully described n the eviction petition, to the tenant under document Exhibit A(sic) 2, an acknowledgment of tenancy, executed by the tenant in their favour on April 11. 1957. In the said document, the purpose of tenancy has been described as "RAHAISH VAISTEMAI KIUD" The permissive user would mean " for personal residence and user' The landlords claimed that tenant had changed the user of the premises in as -much as, he had totally converted it for business purpose and also that the tenant had stopped being in occupation of the premises in dispute for the Barred sufficient period prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The tenant Petitioner denied the allegations by cross -assertion that he had taken the premises for commercial purposes and not for residential purposes There were other points of contest as well, but they are not necessary to be referred to while disposing of this petition as they stand settled between the parties. The Rent Controller framed the following issues. -

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the purpose of tenancy disclosed in document Exhibit A. 2 did not negative user for commercial purpose, besides that of residence. He emphasised that the expression "personal user" contra distincts to the use of residence and signifies permission for commercial user On that strength, it was contended that the Courts below had fallen in an error of law in giving a dwarfed(sic) meaning to the permitted user. It was also contended that the tenant had been using this property as a godown as his main business premises were in the same baz r and that the occupation of the premises in dispute was subsisting at the time when the ejectment petition was moved it was also contended that by keeping his goods and luggage, the tenant had not divested himself either from the occupation of premises or to have changed the user thereof Cumulatively , it was contended that the findings on the contested issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 - A should have been answered in favour of the tenant - petitioner and that is the claim which has been reiterated in the arguments On all the matters addressed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the judgment of the lower Appellate Authority confirming that of the Rem Controller cannot be shaken. No merit can bo spelled from the contentions put forth A nan residential building for the purposes of the East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act, must be a building which has been let out solely for commercial(sic) purposes A residential building, on the other hand may not be le out solely for residential purposes, but may involve leeting(sic) for residential as well as other purposes. But, despite such varied permissive user, a, residential building would retain the character of a residential building unless it is let out solely for commercial purposes Bare facedly, the permits live user may be for residential and other purposes By no stretch of imagination, could the building be called non residential in the context at the initiation of the tenancy On that finding, obviously, as is the case of the tenant, there is a change of user of the premises in dispute.