KHUSHWANT SINGH Vs. BRIG RUPINDERJIT SINGH DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisions are at the instance of the tenants who were denied the leave to defend in their action for ejectment filed by a Brigadier anticipating to retirement under Section 13 -A of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1948 (for short 'the Act'). The certificate from the authority showing the date of superannuation as 12th September, 2008 had been filed in the court and the landlord had also filed documents to show that the allotment made by the Improvement Trust was a building for residential construction and that it was not a commercial property. This became relevant, for, the landlord to disclose in view of the law under Section 13 -A of the Act being construed to be restrictive for use only for residential purpose.

(2.) THE tenants were occupying the respective portions of property only for a non -residential purpose admittedly and they took a plea that the petition was not competent under Section 13 -A of the Act, since the property in their possession was for non -residential purposes. They also contended that the landlord's remaining portion of the property which was claimed by the landlord as residential was not in occupation of any tenants and the landlord himself was in occupation thereof. Consequently, the issue of whether the portion in the possession of the tenants were required by the landlord for conversion to residential purpose will have to be tested on evidence and consequently leave to defend must be granted.

(3.) THE Rent Controller directed his attention only to the maintainability of the petition for a residential building portion of which were used for non -residential purpose and the tenability of the petition for eviction treating the non -residential portion as a part of residential building. The Rent Controller relied on several decisions rendered by this court holding that when a residential building constructed in place which is meant for residential purpose but put to use in some portion abutting the road for non -residential purpose, the building still be considered as residential building. The court has, therefore, found that there was simply no ground for defence to be availed by the tenants and declined the leave.