(1.) THIS a revision petition riled by a tenant Swami Triguna Nand against whom an order of ejectment passed by the Kent Controller has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) THE only question in the revision petition is whether the ejectment of the tenant could properly be ordered on the ground that the landlord required the premises in suit, which consisted of a single room leased for residential purposes, for his own occupation. The landlord in this case is not an individual person, but a juristic person, Shri Mahabir Dal of Kalka, and it is not disputed that the purpose for which this body requires the premises in suit is the storing of such thing as the uniforms of its volunteers.
(3.) THE Petitioner's contention in the present case is that whereas the term 'his own use' as applied to a landlord in Section 13(3) (a) (ii) may be capable of wide interpretation the words used in respect of residential premises in Section 13(3) (a) (i) (a) 'his own occupation' must be strictly limited to occupation tor residential purposes and that therefore the ejectment of the tenant in the present case from residential premises could not be ordered on the ground that they were required by the corporate body for use as a store room. This contention is supported by reference to the provisions of Section 11 of the Act which provides that no person shall convert a residential building into a non -residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller and also certain observations of the learned Judges in the case of Municipal -Committee, Abohar, I.L.R. 1959 P&H 1131, in which a clear distinction was drawn between the words 'use' with reference to rented land and 'occupation' with reference to residential premises. It was held that the word 'use' has a very extensive meaning in the present context, but in the case of a residential building the use is restricted and a landlord can only obtain possession of it ii he requires it for his own 'occupation'.