TEJINDER SINGH JAGGI Vs. RAJIV CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I . The key question : The landlord's petition for eviction was filed under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required it for his own occupation and that he was not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned nor had he vacated any such building without sufficient cause. The contest was essentially on the ground that the property was let out as a shop and as such the landlord was not entitled to seek for eviction on the ground of his personal need for his residential accommodation. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Court took similar views upholding the landlord's contention that the property that had been let was residential building. The entire focus of argument before this Court by the tenant was the maintainability of the petition namely that a building let for nonresidential purpose could not be sought for eviction for the personal need of the landlord for his own residential occupation. This revision raises the question and seeks a solution when the building in occupation of a tenant is perceived to be a part of a larger building and where there exists no zoning requirement in the 'urban area'. II. The tenant's contention : Purpose of letting the only consideration :

(2.) THE respective senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant and the landlord have placed extensive reliance on the decisions that hold two divergent views. While the tenant would contend that it is the purpose of letting, the nature of user of the building, the locality where it is built etc. that would determine whether the building was residential or non- residential, the senior counsel for the landlord laid an emphasis on the structural integrity of a building that is let, which if it is a part of a larger construction which is used for a residential or nonresidential purpose, it is a nature of user of the larger building of which the demised premise is a part would determine the nature of building, regardless of the actual purpose for which it was let. To set of decisions cited on behalf of the tenant, there is a counter point and every decision that is cited by the senior counsel for the landlord has a forceful response in the attempt to distinguish it by the senior counsel for the tenant. The forensic skills of the respective senior counsel was never in doubt but in every judicial approach to ultimately arrive at a just conclusion, there are three aspects that stand out : (i) the strength of the precedent value of the authorities cited by the respective counsel; (ii) the factual context under which the decisions were rendered to understand how the law evolved out of a given set of situations and (iii) consistency in approach without committing violence to the legislative intent approached through express provisions of law. III. The landlord's contention: The entire structure is residential building :

(3.) THE provision under which the landlord has sought eviction is under Section 13(3)(a)(i), which reads as under :-