DURGA DASS Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS it landlord's petition whose application for ejectment has been dismissed by the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Hari Ram from the premises in dispute which consist of two shops, inter alia, on the ground that the said shops being the integral part of a residential building will be deemed to be residential building and that the landlord bona fide requited the same for his own use and occupation. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the tenant, the allegations were denied. It was pleaded that the demised premises was a nonresidential building let out for business purposes and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to seek his ejectment on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises in dispute were let out for business purposes and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to seek the ejectment of his tenant on the ground or his own use and occupation. Consequently, the application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the application for ejectment. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the Bar 1 do not find any merit in this petition. It has come in evidence that the building is situate in a mandi and the demised premises are being used as shops from the very beginning Even the father of the landlord used the premises as shops before it was let out to others, including the present tenant. Once it is so found , it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the Petitioner -landlord that the whole building is 'residential' as such and since the demitted premises form part thereof, the landlord is entitled to see ejectment of his tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement As a matter of fact, from the evidence it is quite clear that the building was in the nature of shop -cum residence Only the shop portion was let out to the tenant and the residential portion remained in occupation of the landlord. Thus, the authorities relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are clearly distinguishable. In both the cases cited by him it was not disputed that the building as such was a residential building though a part of it or the whole of it was let out for non -residential purpose As stated earlier, in the present case it has been found by both the authorities below that the whole building was not residential building as such The demised premises were constructed as shops and were being used as such from the very beginning. In this view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.