NARANJAN KAUR Vs. DR. SIRI RAM JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE demised premises is a shop situate in bazar Nauhrian in the urban area of Jullundur. It is the property of Naranjan Kaur Applicant. It was let by her to Dr. Sri Ram Joshi Respondent to be used by him as a clinic for the carrying on of his profession as a medical man.

(2.) EVICTION of the Respondent was sought by the Applicant on various grounds, but the ground which has survived with the Appellate Authority, in its order of November 11, 1965, is under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949), that the Respondent used the demised premises 'for a purpose other than that for which it was leased', the Appellate Authority having found as a fact and on the appraisal of the evidence on record that back part of the shop in question was used by the Respondent for residential purposes. However, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissed the eviction application of the Applicant following Indar Singh v. Kalu Ram and Anr., I.L.R. (1965) 1 P&H 121 :, 1965 P.L.R. 58. In that case the tenant had leased the shop for the purpose of his trade as a barber and while he carried on his trade in the front part of the shop, he had started living, with his family, in its back part. Falshaw, C.J., held that the case did not fall under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act, observing - -"I am inclined to take the view that such a partial conversion is not covered by the provisions of the Act and I derive support for this view from the different way in which Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 13(2)(ii) have been phrased. Clause (a) reads 'transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof, while the words 'or any portion thereof do not appear in Clause (b). Obviously the omission is deliberate, and in my opinion the ejectment was rightly refused on this ground." It is the correctness of the decision in Indar Singh's case, I.L.R. (1965) 1 P&H 121 :, 1965 P.L.R. 58, which is questioned in this revision application by the Applicant and hence the correctness of the orders of the authorities below.

(3.) OF the cases decided, in Nand Lal v. Dr. Gurbakhsh Rai reported as, 1962 P.L.R. 601. Falshaw, J. as he then was, held that a tenant carrying on his own business in major portion of the shop let to him could not be said to have used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was let, simply because he found it convenient to cook his own meals in a small portion of the premises. This was perhaps not a case of really user other than that for which the shop, had been let. The second case is Richhpal v. Ishwar Chand C.R. 332 of 1964 decided on 1st October, 1965, decided by S.B. Capoor, J. It was a case of shop in the market area of Thanesar town. The rent -note said clearly that the shop was taken on rent for the purpose of tenant's business. It was found as a fact that the back part of the shop was used for tethering cattle which damaged and spoiled the floor. One of the grounds considered by the learned Judge was that under Clause (b) of Section 13(2)(ii) of the Act, and when Indar Singh's case , I.L.R. (1965) 1 P&H 121 :, 1965 P.L.R. 58, was cited before him, the learned Judge observed that the observations in that case applied to the peculiar facts of that case and could not be stretched so far as to permit tethering of cattle in the premises let out for purpose of a shop. This rather supports the view that I have expressed above. The third case is Basanti Devi v. Khazan Chand C.R. 488 of 1965 decided on 3rd February; 1967, in which R.P. Khosla, J. following Indar Singh's case,, I.L.R. (1965) 1 P&H 121 :, 1965 P.L.R. 58, came to the conclusion that where the premises had been let out to the tenant for running sarafa or jeweller's business and instead he started manufacture of hosiery by setting up machines in the same, that was not really a case of partial conversion of user for a purpose other than for which the premises had been let Within the meaning and scope of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. This was a clear case which did not come under that provision because the premises taken on rent for business were used for the purpose Or purposes of business but of a different type. The last case in this respect is a decision by me in Sarla Devi v. Union of India, I.L.R. (1968) P&H , in which a building had been rented by the Income -Tax Department for its offices. It was a non -residential building. Some of the employees of that Department such as peons and process -servers occupied the out -houses paying nominal rent. This was sought to bring under Section 13(2)(ii)(b), but this argument was rejected having regard to the definition of the expression 'non -residential building' as hi Section 2(d), though curiously reference to the proviso in that definition is not made in the judgment. The argument was rejected and this supports the view that has been expressed above. So all these cases, which concerned non -residential buildings, do not support the contention on the side of the Respondent The only other cases that have been referred to during the arguments are a reference order by Mahajan, J. in Brahma Nand v. Narain Singh C.R. 723 of 1964 decided on 7th October, 1965, Rameshwar Dass and Anr. v. Rishi Parkash, and Anr., I.L.R. (1965) 1 P&H 177, and Himalyan Traders v. Narain Dass, 1965 Curr. LJ P&H 894, but none of these cases is of assistance in the present case because the same deal with eviction from residential buildings. In each case eviction was sought from a house and different considerations may apply to the case of an eviction from a house than from business premises.