SUJAN SINGH Vs. SHOBHA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, dated 18th May, 1981 whereby the order of the Rent May, 1981 whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application, was set aside and an order of eviction was passed against him. The premises in dispute is a very small place which can more aptly be described as an Almirah constructed in the outer wall of a temple of goddess Devi fully described in site plan Ext. P-1. The landlord is the Manager (Mohitmam) of Mandir Devi in question, whereas the building in which the said Almirah is situate is owned by Devi Mandir. It was alleged in the ejectment application that the Almirah in question was erected for installation of an idol of God Bhairaon Ji. As the idol was not available and the Almirah was not to be put to use immediately, the same was let out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. Since the premises in dispute is now required for the purpose, it was built, i.e. for installing the Murti of Bhairon Ji, the ejectment was sought of the tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it being required by the landlord for its own use and occupation. The tenant contested the application and pleaded that the premises in question is a shop which, being small in dimensions, looks like an Almirah and since the premises in dispute was let our for non-residential purpose, the building will be said to be a non-residential building and the landlord is not entitled to seek his ejectment on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own use and occupation.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:

(3.) The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord has failed to prove that the premises in dispute which are in the nature of an Almirah, are being used for the purposes of residence and are residential premises. In other words, it came to the conclusion that the building is a non-residential one and, therefore, the ground of eviction on the basis of personal necessity is not available to the landlord. Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed this finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the premises in question are an integral part of the temple of goddess Devi and there is no denying the fact that the substantial portion of the building of the temple is used as temple and, by no stretch of imagination, the activities of devotes of the temple could be described as a trade or business. This clearly shows that the temple is a residence of the goddess and as such the temple can hardly be described as a non-residential building. That being so, the small portion of the building, which was let out, even though for being used for trade or business purpose, will not make that portion as a non-residential building. It was further held that the demised premises are a residential building and the landlord requires them bona fide for personal use and occupation. As a result of this finding, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and an order of eviction was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant-petitioner has come up in revision in this Court.