SUDARSHAN KUMAR BHATIA Vs. DHARAM PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision petition comes up for hearing after a report that has been obtained pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in an elaborate order dated 23.04.2003 to an application filed by a "specified landlord" under Section 13A complaining of subletting by the tenant and also requiring the premises for his bona fide use and occupation. II. No prohibition or zoning or schedule for use for non-residential purpose in a residential area : (on facts)

(2.) THE plea taken by the tenant was that the shop in occupation of the tenant was a non-residential building and the landlord was not entitled to secure eviction for a residential purpose. The Rent Controller found the plea of subletting to be not true but still held the requirement of the landlord to have been established, considering the fact that the demised shop premises was a part of an integral whole of residential building situated over a residential locality and hence held that the demised premises was required to be vacated. The directions of this Court became necessary to find out whether the demised premises was in any particular specification of zoning relating to the locality used for non-residential purposes. The interim order of this Court calling for report directed three questions to be answered :-

(3.) FROM the reading of report, it is evident that there are particularly no zoning requirements in Amritsar and therefore, it is not possible to state that in a residential area, a tenant could not have been inducted for a non- residential use of a tenant or vice versa. III. Full Bench Decision in Hari Mittal's case explained :