KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. LEKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, reversing, on appeal, the decision of the Rent Controller, dismissing the application of the landlord for the eviction of the tenant.

(2.) KRISHAN Gopal is the tenant and Lekh Raj is the landlord. Eviction was claimed on a large number of grounds. But the only ground, that survives, is, -that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for his use and occupation. The Rent Controller proceeded on the basis that even if it was taken for granted that the accommodation with the landlord was insufficient for him and his family, the tenant could not be evicted because the premises were not, in their entirety, residential. The appellate authority held the premises to be residential and reversed the decision of the Rent Controller. The tenant has now come up in revision. It is common ground that in part of the premises, the tenant carries on business. The Rent Controller proceed to hold that the premises were 'non -residential', on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma v. Dr. S.K. Bhardwaj : A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 337, and Miss S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand : A. I. R 1968 S.C. 438. Both these cases are under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the provisions of which are not analogous to the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The provisions of the Delhi Act were considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. Gopal Duss's case; and it will be appropriate to quote that part of the judgment:

(3.) That being so, this petition fails and is dismissed; but there will be no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the tenant prays that he may be granted some time to vacate the premises. I grant him three month's time. The execution will only take place after expiry of these three months.