(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.11.1986 passed by the learned Appellate Authority Ambala, under Section 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) whereby an appeal filed by the landlord-petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner is proved to be the landlord and the respondent is a tenant under him in the premises which comprises of a room and a courtyard. The factory of the respondent M/s Dua Metal Industries, adjoins the premises in dispute. The petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent under Section 13 of the Act on various grounds, namely, non-payment of rent for the period from 23.4.1980 to 22.4.1981; the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation; the respondent having failed to occupy the premises in dispute continuously for a period of ten months; personal bonafide requirement of the premises by the petitioner and change of user of the premises by the respondent. On all these counts, however, the case of the petitioner failed and his application for ejectment of the respondent was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22.5.1986. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority by judgment under revision. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court through the present revision petition.
(3.) THERE can be no dispute with the above proposition. In fact in Hari Mittal's case, the Full Bench of this Court has elaborately dealt with the question and has held that in spite of the fact that a residential building is let out for a non-residential purpose, the character of the building being residential does not cease of exist when permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act is not obtained for converting the same for non-ejectment of the tenant to whom the residential building is let out for non-residential purposes for his own use and occupation within the meaning of the Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.