JAGJIT MEHTA Vs. DEV BRAT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the tenant is directed against as order of his ejectment from the premises in dispute passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide his judgment dated 21.2.87.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent invoking the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) sought ejectment of the petitioner from the premises which he styled as a "room" forming part of house bearing No. K-37/2, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. He averred that he was working as a District Development and Panchayat Officer at Jalandhar and was due to retire on 31.7.1986 and is, therefore, a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act. He was holding appointment in the Public Service under the State of Punjab. He required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. He is a Law Graduate and after retirement from service he intended to start his practice as an advocate at Jalandhar and he required the premises in dispute for setting up his office. The application was duly supported by an affidavit and a certificate of the competent authority that the respondent was due to retire from service on 31.7.1986. The petitioner was allowed to contest the application. He filed his written statement. Though he denied therein the allegations of the respondent that he is a "specified landlord" within the meaning of the Act, during the course of evidence there was virtually no contest on this point and as such the learned Rent Controller rightly held that the respondent is a specified landlord.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the pleadings and evidence brought on the record before the learned Rent Controller. I am of the considered view that the learned Rent Controller has erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction while passing the order of ejectment through the judgment under revision. His jurisdiction under Section 13-A of the Act would be attracted only in case the premises in dispute is a "residential building or scheduled building". It was admittedly not a scheduled building because the petitioner was using the premises in dispute exclusively for his medical practice while he is residing in a separate house owned by his wife. So what is required to be seen is whether the premises in dispute could be styled as a residential building.