GOPI RAM Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOPI Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), who is tenant in the demised premises, has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated 28.9.1987, passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide which the appeal filed by Jagan Nath (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'), who is landlord, against the order of dismissal of his ejectment application by the Rent Controller has been allowed and the order of ejectment has been passed against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the demised premises was rented out by the respondent to petitioner in the year 1955 for the purpose of doing business. From the very inception of the tenancy, the petitioner is doing the business of Karyana shop in the demised premises. In the year 1984, the respondent filed ejectment application against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act for his ejectment on the ground of personal necessity by alleging that the demised premises is part of the residential building, therefore, the respondent is legally entitled to get the same vacated on the ground of personal necessity. This application was resisted by the petitioner on the grounds that the demised premises is non-residential building; the same was let out to him by the respondent for doing business and from the very inception, the same is being used for the purpose of business. Therefore, it was pleaded that the premises in question cannot be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. It was further pleaded that the respondent has not pleaded the requirement as provided under Section 13(3)(ii) of the Act for getting the demised premises vacated on the ground of personal necessity.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, while relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka, 1986(1) RCR(Rent) 92 (P&H) : 1986 PLR 1, has allowed the said appeal and passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner. It was held that when a residential building is let out for non-residential purpose by the landlord without obtaining the written permission of the Rent Controller in terms of section 11 of the Act, the building in question will continue to be residential building and the landlord will be entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.