RATTAN SINGH Vs. D R KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter referred to as the Act), as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, has been placed before us on a reference by R. N. Mittal J., vide order dated May 9, 1980.

(2.) The vexatious question which has eluded authoritative pronouncement so long is as to whether the tenant of a residential building would become liable to ejectment under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act for using the said building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased, if after the commencement of the lease he adopts one of the professions mentioned in the Schedule to the Act his business. The admitted facts for his business. The admitted facts leading to this controversy are that the demised premises were let out to the respondent for residential purpose in the year 1971 when he was in the employment of the Government as an Engineer. Some time after retirement, he was enrolled as an advocate and then he started using part of the demised premises for the purpose of his profession. Thereupon the landlord filed this petition on January 6, 1978 for his ejectment on the ground that by setting up his office and using a part of the building for his profession, he has used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out and has thus become liable to ejectment. The tenant admitted that he was using the demised premises for his profession and for his residence but disputed has liability to ejctment and pleaded that the said building was a scheduled building within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act and as such its dominate purpose continues to be residential. The Ret Controller negatived the plea of the landlord, holding that the dominant purpose of the said building continues to be residential and therefore, there was no perversion of the purpose of the lease. On appeal this finding was affirmed by the Appellate Authority which led to the fling of the present petition by the landlord.

(3.) When the case came up for hearing before the learned singly Judge, the landlord relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported as Telu Ram v. Om Prakash Garg, (1971) 73 Pun LR 1, for the proposition that even the use of a small portion of a residential building for his business by the residential building for his business by the tenant, which has the result to converting it into a scheduled building would render him liable for ejectment for the violation of the provision of Section 13(2)(ii)(b). The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand relied on two single bench decisions in Civil Revn. No. 910 of 1972(Tulsi Dass v. Shiv Datt) decided on March 8, 1973(punj) and Civil Revn. No. 44 of 1976(B. S. Kamthania v. Smt Hardial Kaur) decided on November 29, 1979* to controvert the proposition advanced by the landlord. As the decision in Telu Ram's case (supra) was not noticed in the later two decisions, the matter has been referred to a large Bench.