M P BANSAL Vs. DIST EMPLOYMENT OFFICER PATHANKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Employment Officer (respondent) is in occupation of the premises in dispute in Pathankot since before its purchase by the petitioners in August, 1975. The petitioners filed ejectment application in January, 1978, seeking ejectment of the respondent on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller upheld the plea of the petitioners and directed the ejectment of the respondent. The order of the Rent Controller was assailed in appeal which was allowed by the appellate Authority, Gurdaspur. The plea of personal requirement of the petitioners was negatived, order of the Rent Controller set aside and the ejectment application dismissed. The petitioners have challenged the order of the appellate Authority in the present revision.

(2.) The revision was listed for hearing before me for arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the premises can be treated non-residential if used solely for the purpose of business or trade. The office of the District Employment Officer is neither business nor trade. The premises shall, therefore, be treated residential while being used as office of the District Employment Officer. Another point argued was that the premises in dispute having been constructed for residential purposes, the same shall continue to be residential for purposes of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter 'the Act') in the absence of an order of the Rent Controller under S.11 thereof. Reliance was placed on Janak Kundara v. Central Board of Workers Education, ILR (1981) 2 Punj and Har 90. A contrary view has been taken on this point in Jagan Nath v. Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd (1980) 2 Ren C. J. 672, wherein it has been held that the expression 'building' as defined in S.2(a) of the Act means any building or part of building let out for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not. Consequently, unless the building is let out, it will not be governed by the provisions of the Act. The provisions of S.11 of the Act do not debar the owner of a building to let out the building for non-residential purposes though it may initially have been constructed for residential purpose. Therefore, a building which, though residential, is let out for commercial purpose, namely, for running banking business, would be non-residential after it is let out.

(3.) Keeping in view the conflict in the two Single Bench judgments referred to above, the case was sought to be referred to a larger Bench. It is how this case has come up before us.