SWAMI TRIGUNA NAND Vs. MAHABIR DAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision came up for hearing before my Lord the Chief Justice, By his order dated the 12th of October, 1962, he has referred it to a Division Bench. The same point being involved in civil revisions Nos. 154, 155, and 204 to 207 of 1962, they were also to be heard with it. This judgment will dispose of all of them.

(2.) THE only point which requires determination is whether an order of ejectment of a tenant can be validly passed, with regard to residential premises when the landlord, who is not an individual but a juristic person, requires the same for its own occupation.

(3.) AS regards the second ground, that is on the ground that the premises were required for the personal occupation of the landlord, it is conceded that the premises are required by the landlord for the storage of sticks, durries; etc., which are used by the landlord, which is a public body, for the training of the youth. It was argued by the tenant that as the premises were rented for residential purposes, the landlord by storing sticks and durries was changing the nature of the property and also being a juristic person, it could not require the premises for its own occupation. The Rent Controller held that the use of the premises for storing of sticks and durries belonging to the landlord could not amount to changing or converting residential premises into non -residential. He referred to the definitions of "non -residential" and "residential" premises in the Act and came to the conclusion that since nonresidential buildings are those which are used solely for carrying on any trade or business, and, as the storing of sticks and durries by Mahabir Dal could by no stretch of imagination be considered to be trade or business, the nature of the property was not being changed. He further remarked that it was not urged before him, although it might be urged, that the house is not required for any residence and that there may be some force in this contention if properly raised, but as it had not been raised he was not dealing with it. Consequently the learned Rent Controller passed an order directing the tenant to put the applicant in possession of the house in dispute within two months.