DHARAM VIR Vs. VINOD MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The premises in dispute is a rented land. Originally it belonged to Mohan Lal Handa, Advocate, who inducted the tenant Nand Lal therein. The same was sold vide registered sale deed D/-22-12-1981 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- to the present landlord Dr. Vinod Mahajan. Nand Lal died somewhere in the month of Nov. or Dec., 1981 and, therefore, the tenancy devolved on his heirs including Dharamvir petitioner who alone is in actual occupation of the rented land running the business of the fuel wood. The landlord is a Medical Practitioner registered under The Punjab Medical Registration Act. He purchased that rented land for his own use and business. After obtaining his M.B.B.S. degree in the year 1972, he started practice as a Medical Practitioner in the year 1975. He had to start the practice in a rented shop because of non-availability of any accommodation being available at Gurdaspur. Accommodation in the rented shop was quite insufficient and also the same was not fit and suitable for his growing business as a Medical Practitioner. In these circumstances, he sought the ejectment of his tenant from the demised premises for his own use in order to expand his business by constructing and setting up a nursing home in the said rented land. It was also pleaded that he was not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purposes of his business any other rented land nor he has vacated any such land without any sufficient cause. In the written statement the tenants controverted the allegations made in the ejectment application. It was denied that the landlord required the land bona fide for his own use. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord bond fide required the rental and for his own use as he purchased, the same for the expansion of his business. Consequently, eviction order was passed In appeal the learned appellate authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) The sole argument raised on behalf of the tenant-petitioner is that since the landlord is a Medical Practitioner and has sought the ejectment of his tenant from the rented land for constructing the nursing home, no ejectment order could be passed because the rented land could be got vacated only if the landlord required the same for his business. According to the learned counsel, medical practice is a profession and not business as contemplated under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It was further contended that under S.13(3)(ii), the landlord could eject the tenant from the rented land only for the purpose of business and not for the purpose of profession. In support of his contention, strong reliance was placed on a judgment rendered by me reported as Tara Chand Chandani v. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, (1980) 2 Ren CJ 181. Reference was made to Kolapur Traders v. Subramania Mudaliar (Mad), (1979) 2 Ren CR 129. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the word 'business' used in S.13(3)(ii)(b) is to be interpreted in a wider sense and it includes the profession as well. In support of this contention reference was made to Mohan Lal v. R. Kondiah, AIR 1979 SC 1132 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in Model Town Welfare Council v. Bhupinder, AIR 1973 Punj and Har 76. Reference was also made to Dr. Bashir Uddin v. District Judge Bulandshahr, (1978) 1 Ren CJ 199 : (1978 All LJ 82).