HEM RAJ Vs. RAMESH KUMAR KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESH Kumar Khosla, respondent in his capacity as specified landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord') sought the ejectment of Hem Raj, petitioner tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant') from the demised premises which is a room of residential house situated in Kapurthala Town under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for his personal use and occupation. The case of the landlord was that he retired from service on July 1, 1988 as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Army; that he was living in a rented accommodation at Jalandhar and did not possess any other residential house; that he required the demised premises for his bonafide personal use as a Baithak of his residential house. It was further averred that the room with the tenant was an integral part of the residential building which could be got vacated. Tenant filed his written statement and controverted the claim of the landlord on the ground that the room in question was let out for commercial purposes and is being used as a shop for tailoring business of the tenant from the beginning of the tenancy. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

(2.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, issue No. 3 was not pressed by the landlord and the same was decided in favour of the tenant. Rent controller took issues No. 1 and 2 together for discussion. Both these issues were decided in favour of the landlord. It was held that the room in question though being used for a commercial purpose was nevertheless an integral part of the residential building; that the residential building cannot be converted into a non-residential building without taking permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act; that the premises in dispute were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation bonafide. On the findings recorded, the petition was accepted and the landlord was ordered to be put in possession and the tenant was ordered to be ejected. Tenant has come in revision.

(3.) IN the back drop of these facts, it has to be decided as to whether the disputed premises is a commercial premises or a residential premises which could be got vacated by the landlord for his personal use and occupation under Section 13-A of the Act. Counsel appearing for the tenant did not challenge the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the landlord was a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 13-A of the Act.