BHGHAL SINGH Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Singh took the disputed premises on rent from Harnam Singh on September 28, 1972 on the basis of a rent note (Exhibit A.2). Upon the ejectment application filed by Harnam Singh, the Rent Controller, Batala, ordered Ajit Singh to be evicted from the tenancy premises, mainly on the ground of landlord's requirement for his personal occupation. The appeal filed by Ajit Singh was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated October 3, 1981, the instant revision has been filed by the tenant.

(2.) THE sole controversy in this case pertains to the nature of the tenancy premises. The landlord Harnam Singh contended in his ejectment application that these premises were rented out for residential purposes. On the contrary the tenant Ajit Singh asserted that the premises fall under the category of non-residential premises which cannot be got vacated by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity. The Courts below have accepted the contention of the landlord and have held that the tenancy premises are a residential building. This is the finding which has been primarily challenged in these proceedings.

(3.) A perusal of the written statement filed by the tenant would clearly show that the premises in dispute had not been let out solely for the purpose of business or trade. In paragraph 2 of the written statement it is admitted by the tenant that the disputed Aahata was taken on rent by the tenant partially for selling fodder, fire wood etc. and partially for residential purposes. The same fact reiterated in paragraph 3(iii) of the written statement. Thus, according to the petitioner's own case the premises in dispute are not a non-residential building since these premises were not let out soley for the purpose of business or trade. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the tenancy premises in occupation of the petitioner were a residential building.