LEKH RAJ LAROYA Vs. JAWAL DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision was referred by me to a larger Bench because of certain seeming conflict of decisions of this Court and the importance of the question involved. On facts, there is no dispute. The landlady brought a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the building in dispute was a residential building and she bona fide required it for her personal use. The tenant contested the claim on two grounds, namely :-

(2.) The Rent Controller found that the building was a Scheduled building and, therefore, the tenant, could not be evicted. The question whether the landlady bona fide required it for personal use was found in her favour. On appeal by the landlady, the Appellate Authority has found that the building is not a Scheduled building because it is only casually being used for the profession of a doctor. The finding of the Rent Controller that the landlady required the building bona fide for her personal use, was upheld. Against this decision, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The other findings against the petitioners than the one under discussion are findings of fact and have rightly not been challenged before us. The only finding, on which the controversy has arisen, is whether the building in dispute is a 'Scheduled building' or a 'Residential building'? It is common ground that if "he building is a 'Scheduled building', the petition must succeed and if it is not, it must fail. Mr. Sarin, who appears for the tenants, contends that on the facts, found by the Appellate Authority, it should have been held that the building is a 'Scheduled building'; whereas Mr. Gujral contends to the contrary and maintains that the building is a 'Residential building' and not a 'Scheduled building'. The relevant part of the finding of the Appellate Authority is as follows :-