BALWANT SINGH Vs. GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition directed against the order of ejectment passed by the appellate Authority. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought by the respondent on the ground that the room in occupation of the petitioner, which forms part of residential building, was given to him for residential purpose, but he has started using the same as a shop. The other ground taken in the ejectment petition was that the respondent requires the room for his personal use and occupation. Tenant (petitioner herein) on appearance, tendered the arrears of rent. In his written statement, he started that actually the alleged room is a shop situated in the main bazar and it was let out to him as a shop He also stated that no residential facilities are available with the room and, therefore, question of its being a room does not arise. The pound of personal necessity was, therefore, stated to be not available to the landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition after finding that the room in dispute, though is a part of the residential building, but it was let out for the purpose of running a shop and the same is being used as such by the tenant and so, ground of personal necessity is not available to the landlord. On appeal by the landlord, the appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller only on the ground that the shop is a part of residential building and even if, part of the residential building is let out for non residential purpose, its character will not change and it will remain part and parcel of the building. Thus, according to the appellate Authority, no permission was sought from the Rent Controller for converting the room of residential building into non-residential one as provided by Section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to get it vacated on the ground of personal necessity. Consequently, an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. Tenant has now impugned the order of the appellate Authority in the present revision petition.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that the order of the appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Respondent, though has taken a stand in his ejectment petition that the room was let out for the purpose of residence, but the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority on the appreciation of evidence, have returned the finding that the room was taken for the purpose of running a shop. For this finding, the Authorities below relied upon the receipts, Exhibit R-l to R-4, where expression 'shop' has been used. The Authorities also found that the shop is in the main bazar. Adjacent to the shop, there are shops of brothers of the respondent and all these shops open in the main bazar. No bathroom or kitchen is attached to the shop. Counsel for the respondent though made an effort to challenge this finding, but in any view, the finding is unassailable. The room was let out for the purposes of running a shop. It opens in the bazar where other shops ate also situated and, therefore, it can safely be held that the shop in dispute is an independent unit and was let out for the purpose of running the business.

(3.) FACED with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent contended that under the Act, the buildings are divided into two categories 'non-residential' and 'residential'. According to him, buildings used solely for the purpose of business or trade are 'non residendential and the remaining buildings are 'residential'. Referring to the definition of 'non-residential building' and 'residential building' as contained in clause (d) and clause (g) respectively of Section 2 of the Act, he contended that building, of Ahich shop forms part, would remain residential building. Reliance was also "placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gulraj Singh Grewal v. Dr. Harbans Singh, (1993-1) 103 P. L. R 410 (S. C ). I am not impressed with this argument of learned counsel for the respondent. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act defines 'building' as any building or part of a building let out for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not. 'the shop is thus, a building falling within the scope of definition of building'. This precise argument was considered by this Court in Lal Chand v. Bal Kishan, (1987-2) 92 P. L. R 222. wherein it was held that "merely because these two shops in the form of building are integral part of the larger building as known in the common parlance, the predominant part of which is residential in character, it is difficult to hold that these shops are a residential building and not a non-residential one. The shops have admittedly been let out to the petitioner solely for running his business. Therefore, those shops are to be treated as non residential building within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act. While letting out shops for solely the purposes of business, it was not necessary to secure the written permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act. Such a permission is required only where a residential building is sought to be converted into a nonresidential building". The judgment in Gulraj Singh Grewal's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, has no application to the facts of the present case because in that case, ground of personal necessity was held to be available also in respect of scheduled building On the ground that the scheduled building does not cease to be a residential building or is a category of building separate from a residential building for the purpose of eviction of tenants in the scheme under Section 13 of the Act.